Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference IGC-2014

December 18-20, 2014, Kakinada, India

A CRITICAL REVIEW OF PORE PRESSURE PREDICTIVE MODELS

Rajesh Prasad Shukla, Research Scholar, IIT Roorkee, shuklarajesh4687@gmail.com.
Ravi Sankar Jakka, Assistant Professor, IIT Roorkee, jakkafeq@iitr.ernet.in.
ABSTRACT: The response of soil and structure under dynamic loading predominantly depends on the magnitude
and rate of built up excess pore pressure. Excess pore pressure affects the behaviour, settlement and strength of
soil. Liquefaction also depends on developed excess pore pressure during earthquake. It is very important to
determine accurate value of pore pressure to analyse soil behaviour under dynamic loading. This paper presents a
critical review of all predictive models of pore pressure including, equivalent Cycle Method by Seed et al. (1975),
Analytical Model by Ishibashi et al. (1977) and modified equivalent Cycle Method by Liyanapathirana & Poulos
(2002). Equivalent cycle method is simpler method but suitable only for sand and cannot be used efficiently in case
of clay, silt and silty clay samples. Ishibashi et al. (1977) method predicts pore pressure more accurately compared
to Liyanapathirana & Poulos (2002) and Seed et al. (1975) methods, but requires more data for pore pressure
prediction. Effect of fines on liquefaction potential is a matter of debate and researchers are still not sure about
effect of fine due to absent of an efficient pore pressure prediction models for fine grain soil.

INTRODUCTION
Dynamic
and
impulsive
loading
cause
development of excess pore pressure and which
leads to degradation of strength, additional
settlement and deformation of soil. Excessive
increase in excess pore pressure can leads to
liquefaction [1]. The response of saturated soil and
structure under dynamic loading predominantly
depends on the magnitude of development of
excess pore pressure. It is very important to
determine accurate value of pore pressure to
analyze soil behaviour accurately under dynamic
loading.
In last five decades, various attempts have been
made to model the excess pore water pressure
through various techniques to solve the stability
problem, foundation problems and specially to
determine the liquefaction potential of a soil. Pore
pressure modeling can be done by either using
uncoupled total stress analysis or a fully coupled
effective stress analysis. A model can be non-linear
or equivalent linear model [2]. Coupled analysis is
more realistic and accurate as it considers all
parameters simultaneously in each and every step.
Whereas in case of uncoupled analysis modeling is
done by without consideration of soil-water
interaction [3]. The equivalent linear model is
simplest model and considerer only few parameters
[1, 4, 5]. Most of data used in studies were

developed from either either stress controlled or

strain controlled cyclic load test. Equivalent linear
modeling replaces the non-linear properties of soil
system by a linear system in such a way that the
effect of transformation from nonlinear to linear
will be minimal [6].
There are various factors that affect the magnitude
and rate of generation of excess pore water
pressure such as type of soil, state of soil, and
characteristic of loading as well. Development of
excess pore pressure in dense sand is similar to
lose sand under cyclic loading but there is
difference in the rate of development of pore
pressure. In dense sand, the rate of development of
pore pressure is moderate compare to lose sand and
in case of loose sand shear strain amplitude
increases suddenly [7]. Earlier, before Kocaeli
earthquake, it was a common to assume that fine
gained soil will not get liquefy and most of studied
were neglected the consideration of fine grained
soil for liquefaction and pore pressure prediction
modeling. In clay-silt mixture, clay imparts
plasticity to the soil and it causes to decrease in
hydraulic conductivity of soil. Decrease in
plasticity leads to increase in chances of high pore
pressure development. Plasticity also increases the
resistance to liquefaction. Now it is a great
question between scientists and researchers that
whether fine grained plastic soil leads to increase

1636

A critical review of pore pressure predictive models

in soil susceptibility to liquefaction or decrease in

liquefaction susceptibility. This is still not clear
due to absent of an efficient pore pressure
prediction models for fine grain soil. Earlier it has
been believed that the soils having high percentage
of plastic soils are less susceptible to liquefaction.
This paper presents a critical review of all
predictive models of pore pressure including,
equivalent Cycle Method [8], Analytical Model by
[9], Modified version of Seed et al. method [10]
and GMP model [11].
PORE PRESSURE PREDICTION MODELS
Pore pressure can be predicted by various methods.
[12] has described total five types of model to
estimate excess pore pressure generated during
cyclic loading. These methods consist of stress
based method, strain based method, energy based
methods and plasticity based method. Stress based
method was used by [8, 13,14], Strain based
method were used by [15-17]. [18] and [11] were
used energy based method. [19] and [20] were used
plasticity based model. [21] and [22] were used
some other type of model to anticipate excess pore
water pressure. Lots of methods are available to
predict excess pore water pressure but in most of
cases the accuracy and uncertainty involved have
not been fully considered and explained in
available literature and second thing that most of
models have not considered fine gained soil for
analysis [12].
DISCUSSION ON DIFFERENT
PORE
PRESSURE PREDICTION METHOD
First a general discussion has been made to
describe the all pore pressure prediction method.
After general discussion, some specific models
have been described briefly. The model selected
for brief description consist of equivalent Cycle
Method given by [8], Analytical Model given by
[9], Modified version of Seed et al. method [10],
GMP model [11] and Strain energy based model by
[49].
Stress based Model
Under seismic loading, residual and transient type
pore pressures develop. If soil is saturated
cohesionless then the developed transient pore

pressures becomes equivalent to the alteration in

the exerted mean normal stresses [8]. The residual
pore pressures are developed due to plastic
deformations of soil and it affects the stiffness and
strength of the sand [23].
In the stress based models, the residual pore
pressures are considered to be equal to pressure
when the value of applied deviator pressure
becomes equal to zero. Methods based on total
stress concept do not consider the progressive
degradation of stiffness due rise in pore pressure.
Strain Based Model
One of the most commonly used pore pressure
generation models is a strain-based model first
proposed by [15] and simplified by [18]This model
uses empirical relations between volumetric strains
of soil samples subjected to strain-controlled cyclic
loading considering the rebound characteristics of
cohesionless soil to anticipate the residual excess
pore pressures in undrained saturated soil sample.
Shear deformation is strongly associated with pore
pressure generation and it provide a good
assessment of excess pore pressure modeling using
strain controlled tests [24]. [25] found that the
sample preparation have small influence on the
response of soil under strain-controlled tests
compared to stress controlled test and threshold
strain to generate excess pore pressure can be
easily investigated under strain controlled testing.
All these factors together contribute to the
effectiveness of strain controlled modeling.
Finding of [25] is in contrast with results of [26].
{17] and [17] used strain controlled modeling.
Although strain-controlled models have numerous
advantages over stress based method, there are
difficulties involve in strain based model in the
testing of specimens for shear strain levels far
away of 0.01and it again redirects the researchers
to opt for stress based method to evolve a better
interpretation of pore pressure response after 0.01
shear strain levels [12].
Strain energy based model
A new model was developed on the concept of
strain-energy. In these models, attempts have been
made to correlate the unit energy dissipations to the
change in excess pore pressure for a cycle of

1637

Rajesh Prasad Shukla, Ravi Sankar Jakka

loading. [26] were the first who established the

correlation between these parameters for a fully
saturated sands. Many researchers have used same
concepts and developed various models to predict
excess pore water pressure using experimental
data[27-37].
Plasticity theory-based models
This model was developed based on effective
stress concept. Use of this model is very limited
due to time constraint and economical reason. [3842] have used this model.
Some other methods and Studies
There are other various methods and studies
available in literature to evaluate the excess porewater pressure developed in saturated clean sands.
[44] have correlated the pore pressure ratio to the
reduction of stiffness of soil under earthquake
loading. [21] attempted to directly correlate the
raise in pore-water pressure magnitude after first
cycle to the total number of cycles that required
causing a 2.5% axial strain in stress-controlled
cyclic triaxial tests without consideration of cyclic
stress ratio and relative densities. Similar work was
conducted by [45] using simple shear tests. [46]
conducted bidirectional simple shear tests and
found that the rate of increase in the pore pressure
ratio is less under the unidirectional loading tests
as compared to multidirectional loading tests. An
empirical model was presented by [22] to
determine the excess pore water pressure generated
at the completion of first loading cycle in gravel.
Equivalent cycle method
[8] has presented an empirical model to predict
pore pressure ratio (ru) based on laboratory tests
performed on clean sands by [48]. Pore pressure
ratio was expressed as a function of cycle ratio.
Cyclic ratio can be define as a ratio of total
numbers of uniform cycles applied to the soil to the
number of cycles required to initiate the
liquefaction of soil mass.

ru =

1 1
1/
+ arcsin{2(
) -1}
2
L

This equation was later modified by [13]

ru =

2
1/2
arcsin(
)

To get the value of pore pressure ratio, two

calibration parameters and NL are required and
can be easily evaluated from stress controlled
undrained cyclic triaxial tests. Alpha () is a
constant and value depends on test condition and
soil type and it having average value of 0.7. To get
the value of N, it is required to convert time history
of a site to equivalent number of cycles and this a
disadvantage of this method.

Fig. 1 Residual excess pore pressure (when =

0.7). [8]
[48] developed a model using probabilistic
concepts and same functional form was adopted for
modeling. [49] developed a model to predict
excess pore pressure under transient loading. [10]
implemented same function in the study of pore
pressure modeling based on finite-element. [14]
found that the coefficient is a function of fine
content, relative density, and cyclic stress ratio as
well. This approach requires multiple series of
tests, and more expensive instruments for
prediction.
GMP Model
An energy-based, GMP model was developed by
[11], which relates the excess pore pressure to the
unit energy dissipated (energy dissipated per unit
volume) within the soil mass at initial liquefaction.
This model can be considered as a special case of a
model proposed by [28]. This model is valid for

1638

A critical review of pore pressure predictive models

non-plastic silt-sand mixtures with varying amount

of non-plastic fines contents.
Ws
ru
1
PEC
Where, ru is pore pressure ratio, Ws = dissipated
unit energy per unit of initial effective confining
pressure and
stress magnitude and PEC is a
calibration parameter or pseudo-energy capacity.
PEC values were determined empirically from the
results of various cyclic tests, and PEC is almost
equal to or less than the dissipated unit energy that
is normalized by the initial effective confining
stress at the point of cyclic mobility.

Where;

is the rate of development of pore

t
pressure, N is the rate of shear stress cycles
t
applied to the soil, Nl is the total count of uniform
cycles to initiate the liquefaction in a soil with a
shear stress magnitude 1, vo is the a magnitude
of effective overburden pressure at the starting and
rp is cyclic history of the soil.

Modified equivalent Cycle Method

[10] presented a model based on effective stress
concept to evaluate the magnitude of developed
pore pressure and reduction of soil strength due to
shaking induced by earthquake. Different peak
shear stress ratios were taken into account to
evaluate the increase in pore pressure magnitude at
long last of loading or unloading. It was considered
that the pore pressure is generated during the whole
cycle irrespective of loading or unloading. The
increase in pore pressure due to loading was
forecasted for the developed maximum shear stress
all along the load increment over a quarter of cycle.
Presented method was established on the fact that
cyclic history of the soil at any time the can be
reproduced by the pore pressure ratio developed in
the soil can be expressed as fallowing equation.

ru =

u g

(a)

2
1/2
arcsin(
)

An advantage of this model is that it considers less

number of model parameters compared to other
numerous effective stress-based models. The pore
pressure generated was calculated based on model
developed by [8] but the same equations are
utilized in some different way. Efficiency and
applicability of model was demonstrated by
comparing the obtained response and liquefactionrelated ground deformations with the Kobe, 1995
earthquake. The change in pore water pressure was
given by fallowing equation given below:

1639

(b)

Rajesh Prasad Shukla, Ravi Sankar Jakka

(c)
Fig. 2 Pore pressure ratio for various loading [10]
Fig. 3 Pore--pressure rise per cycle [9]
Analytical Model
[9] presented a model with the outcomes of
undrained cyclic shear tests conducted on saturated
Ottawa sand in the torsional simple shear apparatus
to forecast the pore pressure rise in the soil under
uniform and non-uniform dynamic shear stresses.
Residual pore pressure developed after the
completion of each cycle was analyzed based on
liquefaction test results with an assumption that the
rise in developed pore pressure is a function of
number of stress cycle, the stress loading history,
and stress intensity function. The increment in the
residual pore pressure was obtained from the
difference between pore
pressures values after two consecutive cycles.
U N*

N [ N ]2.4
1 U N 1*
N 1
Where where UN*, UN* and UN-i* are normalized
incremental residual pore pressures obtained by
dividing the incremental and total residual pore
pressures UN, UN, and UN-1, by the initial
effective confining pressure c.
Figure shows that the incremental rise in the
remolded pore pressure parameter decrease with
the decrease in the effective stress ratio. It was
observed that with increase in number of cycle the
incremental rise in the developed pore pressure per
cycle has been decreased even though the applied
cyclic stress intensities remain the same.

Strain energy based model

[49] conducted tests on hollow cylindrical torsional
shear tests on the reassembled samples of Toyoura
sand under the practical limit of stress states and
initial density to predict the residual pore water
pressure and liquefaction resistance of sand. A
model based on train energy concept was used in
pore pressure evaluation with consideration of two
calibration parameters as a function of capacity
energy (the cumulative energy of sand required to
initiate liquefaction) and cumulative strain energy
density. It was observed that the initial static shear
stress has a little influence generated pore pressure
and more on capacity energy. The proposed model
can predicted residual pore water pressure
accurately and well matching with field value,
centrifuge test value and the shaking table test as
well.

1640

A critical review of pore pressure predictive models

(b)
Fig. 5 Plots of measured and predicted pore
pressure ratios for 7% fines: (a) Seed et al. model;
(b) GMP model [14]

Fig. 4 Excess pore pressure raio [50]

CONCLUDING REMARK
[50] showed that the predictions made by [9] gives
more accurate results with laboratory test than the
method of [10] and [8] but it requires more data
points for pore pressure prediction as compared to
other two methods. Accuracy of prediction by
prediction obtained by [9] and [10] depends on the
difference in the predicted values of NL by shear
strength curve and lab test data.
[14] has compared the results of [8] and [11] and
concluded that the value of pore pressure ratio
differ significantly when fine content consist of
more than 35%.

(a)

(a)

(b)
Fig. 6 Plots of measured and predicted pore
pressure ratios for 75% fines (a) Seed et al. model;
(b) GMP model [14]

1641

Rajesh Prasad Shukla, Ravi Sankar Jakka

Fig. 7 R2 value [14]

Based on Fig 5-6, it can be concluded that for soil
having finer content equal to seven percentages
both models, [8] and [11] give approximately same
results. For soil having finer content equal to seven
percentages both models shows good agreements
with laboratory test results. For soil having finer
content equal to or more than 75%, GMP model
[11 ]has overestimated the pore pressure value but
equivalent model [8] gives more consistent and
accurate predictions. GMP model is unable to
precisely simulate the pore pressure development
in dense sand, compare to Equivalent cycle method
and it leads to large differences in the R2 values.
Total stress based method [8] has good agreements
with laboratory results compared with effective
stress based analyse [10]
REFERENCES
1. Kramer, S.L. (1996), Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering, Prentice Hall Publishing, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
2. Arulmoli, K., Muraleetharan K.K, Hossain
M.M. and Fruth L.S. (1992), VELACS
laboratory testing program, soil data report,
The Earth Technology Corporation, Irvine,
California, U.S.
3. Taiebata,H., Shahirb,H. and Pak, A. (2007),
Study of pore pressure variation during
liquefaction using two constitutive models for
sand. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 27, 6072.
4. Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I.M. (1971), Simplified
procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction
potential, Proc, ASCE, 97, SM9, pp.1249-1273.

5. Vucetic, M. and Dobry, R. (1991), Effect of

soil plasticity on cyclic response, J. of
Geotechnical Eng., 117(GT1), 89-107.
6. Dobry, R., R.V. Whitman, and J.M. Roesset
(1971), Soil properties and one dimensional
theory of soil amplification, Research Report
No. R71-18, Department of Civil Engineering,
MIT, Cambridge, MA.
7. Seed, H.B. (1979), Soil liquefaction and cyclic
mobility evaluation for level ground during
earthquakes, J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol.
105, GT2, 201-255.
8. Seed, H. B., Martin, P. P., and Lysmer, J.
(1975), The generation and dissipation of porewater pressures during soil liquefaction,
Geotechnical Report No. EERC 75-26, Univ.
of California, Berkeley, CA.
9. Ishibashi I, Sherif MA, Tsuchiya C. (1977),
Pore pressure rise mechanism and soil
liquefaction. Soils Foundations, JSSMFE 1977;
17(2), 1727
10. Liyanapathirana, D. S., and Poulos, H. G.
(2002), Numerical simulation of soil
liquefaction due to earthquake loading, Soil
Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 22, 511523.
11. Green, R. A., Mitchell, J. K., and Polito, C. P.
(2000). An energy-based excess pore-water
pressure generation model for cohesionless
soils. Proc., John Booker Memorial Symp.,
Developments in Theoretical Geomechanics,
D.W. Smith and J. P. Carter, eds., Balkema,
Rotterdam,Netherlands, 383390.
12. Onder C.K., and Bilge H.T. (2012), Cyclic
large strain and induced pore pressure models
for saturated clean sands. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 138, 309-323.
13. Booker, J. R., Rahman, M. S., and Seed, H. B.
(1976), GADFLEA- A computer program for
the analysis of pore pressure generation and
dissipation during cyclic or earthquake
loading, EERC Report No. 76-24, Univ. of
California, Berkeley, CA.
14. Polito, C. P., Green, R. A., and Lee, J. (2008),
Pore pressure generation models for sands and
silty soils subjected to cyclic loading, J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 134(10), 1490
1500.

1642

A critical review of pore pressure predictive models

15. Martin, G. R., Finn, W. D. L., and Seed, H. B.

(1975), Fundamentals of liquefaction under
cyclic loading, J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 101(5),
423438.
16. Dobry, R., Pierce, W. G., Dyvik, R., Thomas,
G. E., and Ladd, R. S. (1985), Pore pressure
model for cyclic straining of sand, Research
Rep. 1985-06, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
Troy, NY.
17. Dobry et al. (1982), Prediction of pore-water
pressure buildup and liquefaction of sands
during earthquakes by the cyclic strain method.
National Bureau of Stand. Building Sci. Series
138, Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
18. Byrne, P. M. (1991), A cyclic shear-volume
coupling and pore pressure model for sand.
Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in
Geot. and Earthquake and Soil Dyna., 4755.
19. Prevost, J. H. (1985), A simple plasticity theory
for frictional cohesionless soils, Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Eng., 4(1), 917.
20. Elgamal et al. (2003), Modeling of cyclic
mobility in saturated cohesionless soils, Int. J.
Plast., 19(6), 883905.
21. Oda et al. (2001), Microstructural interpretation
on reliquefaction of saturated granular soils
under cyclic loading. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 127(5), 416423.
22. Eggzelos, D. N. (2004), Experimental and
theoretical investigation of soil behavior under
cyclic loading, Ph.D. dissertation, National
Technical Univ. of Athens, Athens, Greece.
23. Finn WD, Liam (1998), Dynamic analysis in
geotechnical engineering. Proc., Earthquake
Eng. and Soil Dyna. II- Recent Adva. in
Ground Motion Evaluation, ASCE Geot. Eng.
Division, Park City, Utah, 23-91.
24. Derakhshandia et al. (2008), The effect of
plastic fines on the pore pressure generation
characteristics of saturated sands. Soil Dyna.
and Earthquake Eng., 28, 376386.
25. Ladd et al. (1989), Pore water pressure buildup
in clean sands because of cyclic straining.
ASTM, Geotechnical Testing J., 12(1), 7786.
26. Mulilis e al. (1977), Effects of Sample
Preparation on Sand Liquefaction, J. Geotech.
Engrg. Div., 103(GT2), 91109.

27. Nemat-Nasser, S., and Shokooh, A. (1979), A

unified approach to densification and
liquefaction of cohesionless sand in cyclic
shearing, Can. Geotech. J., 16(4), 659678.
28. Berrill JB, Davis R.O. (1985),
Energy
dissipation and seismic liquefaction of sands:
revised model. Soils and Foundations, 125(2),
10618.
29. Davis RO, Berrill JB. Pore pressure and
dissipated energy in earthquakes-Field
verification. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
ASCE 2001;127 (3), 26974.
30. Yamazaki F, Towhata I, Ishihara K. (1985),
Numerical model for liquefaction problem
under multidirectional shearing on horizontal
plane. Proc. of the 5th Int. conference on
numerical methods in geomechanics. Nagoya,
Japan 1985 April 15;1, 399406.
31. Law KT, Cao YL, He GN. (1990), An energy
approach for assessing seismic liquefaction
potential. Can. Geotech. J., 27, 3209.
32. Yanagisawa E, Sugano T. (1994), Undrained
shear behaviors of sand in view of shear work.
Proc. of the 13th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and
Foundation Eng., Performance of Ground and
Soil Structures during Earthquakes, Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 155158.
33. Hsu HL. (1995), Study on the relationship
between shear work and pore water pressure
for saturated sand in undrained test, Proc. of
the 1st Int. Conf. on earthquake Geotechnical
Eng., AA Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam,
Netherlands 1, 301307.
34. Wang G, Takemura J, Kuwano J. (1997),
Evaluation of excess pore water pressures of
intermediate soils due to cyclic loading by
energy method. Proc. of the conf. of computer
methods and advances in geomechanics, AA
Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands
1997. p. 221520.
35. Liang L. (1995), Development of an energy
method for evaluating the liquefaction potential
of a soil deposit. Phd Dissertation. Dept. of
Civil Eng., Case Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, Ohio.
36. Green RA. (2001) Energy based evaluation
and remediation of liquefiable soils, Phd

1643

Rajesh Prasad Shukla, Ravi Sankar Jakka

Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
37. Pastor, M., Zienkiewicz, O. C., and Chan, A.
H. C. (1990), Generalized plasticity and the
modeling of soil behavior, Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Methods Geomech., 14(3), 151190.
38. Wang, Z. L., Dafalias, Y. F., and Shen, C. K.
(1990), Bounding surface hypo plasticity model
for sand, J. Eng. Mech., 116(5), 9831001.
39. Ishihara, K. (1993), Liquefaction and flow
failure during earthquakes, Geotechnique,
43(3), 351415.
40. Park, S. S., and Byrne, P. M. (2004), Practical
constitutive model for soil liquefaction. 9th
Int. Symp. on Numerical Models in
Geomechanics (NUMOG IX), Taylor &
Francis Group, London, 181186.
41. Elgamal et al. (2003), Modeling of cyclic
mobility in saturated cohesionless soils, Int. J.
Plast., 19(6), 883905.
42. Fukutake, K., and Ohtsuki, A. (1995), Threedimensional liquefaction analysis of partially
improved ground, Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on
Earthquake
Geotechnical
Engineering,
Balkema, Brookfield, VT, 863868
43. Marcuson, W. F., Hynes, M. E., and Franklin,
A. G. (1990), Evaluation and use of residual
strength in seismic safety analysis of
embankments, Earthquake Spectra, 6(3), 529
572.
44. Kammerer, A. M. (2002). Undrained response
of Monterey 0/30 sand under multi-directional
cyclic shear loading conditions. Ph.D.
dissertation, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
45. Wu, J., Seed, R. B., and Pestana, J. M. (2003),
Liquefaction triggering and post liquefaction
deformations of Monterey 0/30 sand under unidirectional cyclic simple shear loading,
Geotechnical Engineering Research Rep. No.
UCB/GE-2003/01, Univ. of California,
Berkeley, CA.
46. De Alba, P., Chan, C. K., and Seed, H. B.
(1975), Determination of soil liquefaction
characteristics by large scale laboratory tests,
EERC Rep. No. 75-14, Univ. of California,
Berkeley, CA.
47. Chameau, J. L., and Clough, G. W. (1983),
Probabilistic pore pressure analysis for seismic

loading. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 109(4), 507

524.
48. Wang, J., and Kavazanjian, E. (1985), Porewater pressure development in non-uniform
cyclic triaxial tests, John A. Blume Earthquake
Eng. Center Rep. No. 73, Technical Dept. of
Civil and Enviro. Eng., Stanford Univ.,
Stanford, CA.
49. Jafarian, Y.A.N.T, Towhata B., M.H. Baziar
C, Noorzad D. A., Bahmanpour, A. (2012)
Strain energy based evaluation of liquefaction
and residual pore water pressure in sands using
cyclic torsional shear experiments. Soil Dyna.
and Earthquake Eng. 35 (2012) 1328
50. Phakade, A. (2009) Critical Study of Some
Predictive Models for Pore Pressure
Generation during Cyclic Loading, M.Tech
dissertation, Dept. Of Civil Eng. Indian
Institute Of Technology, Kanpur, India

1644