Numerical solution

Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK

Numerical modeling of cyclic mobility in saturated soil

Yu Bao, Yu-Ning Ge, Stein Sture & Hon-Yim Ko

Department of Civil, Environmental & Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA

ABSTRACT: In this paper, we present a theoretical framework with a numerical procedure for modeling cyclic
mobility, liquefaction and spreading of a two-phase saturated soil.A versatile, transparent and accurate kinematic-
cyclic constitutive model for the soil skeleton based on the Fuzzy Set plasticity theory is presented. Traditional
concepts related to critical state and state parameter are employed in the enhanced model to describe the nonlinear
volumetric changes in granular soils subjected to cyclic loading. The new development of characterizing the
strongly dilative/contractive behavior beneath the failure surface is added and a new expression for the dilatancy
parameter is proposed. The progressive pore pressure build-up as well as the cyclic pore pressure variations for
unusual and non-proportional loading is also predicted. The numerical model presented in this paper can be used
for simulating seismic problems particularly related to soil liquefaction, as well as assessing traditional concepts
related to pore-water-pressure build-up, deformation and spreading behavior.

1 INTRODUCTION set plasticity theory to describe the nonlinear volu-

Cyclic mobility, triggered by cyclic loading, is a liq-
uefaction related phenomenon. Deformations due to
cyclic mobility develop incrementally during an earth-
quake. Lateral spreading is a typical result of cyclic
mobility.
Strong ground motion induces a tendency for vol-
ume change and the soil-skeleton dilation/contraction
effects are of great importance to cause a progressive
pore pressure build-up as well as cyclic pore pressure
variation depending on the drainage condition and soil
permeability. The soil dilation phase at large cyclic
shear strain excursions can cause significant regain
of shear stiffness and strength, and therefore restrain
the magnitude of cyclic and accumulated permanent
shear strains. A number of computational models have
been developed to simulate the processes associated
with sand dilation during liquefaction (Prevost 1981,
1985, Sture, Ko and Mould 1982, Klisinski 1988,
1991, Iai 1991, Bardet et al 1993, Manzari and Dafalias
1997, Yang and Elgamal 2000) and many essential
features of cyclic mobility have been successfully
modeled. However, due to the complexity of lique-
faction problems, such as nonlinearity of responses,
sudden phase transition from solid to liquid behavior,
material instability, interaction and relative movement
between the soil skeleton and interstitial water, limita-
tions on experimental and numerical techniques, and
so on, reliable and accurate predictive methods have
yet to be developed. The main objective of this paper
is to describe and implement an efficient, transparent
and accurate constitutive model based on the fuzzy
metric changes for granular soils. Traditional concepts
of critical state, state parameter and phase transfor-
mation surface are introduced in the enhanced model
and a new expression for the dilatancy parameter is
presented. Fuzzy-set plasticity theory was first pro-
posed by Klisinski (1988). Due to its transparency and
simplicity, this concept has received increasing atten-
tion recently. The model is capable of simulating all
essential nonlinear characteristics of soils, including
nonlinear stress-strain and volume change behavior
during unloading and reloading cycles. In fuzzy-set
plasticity, it is assumed that there exists an ultimate
yield surface where the material behavior is entirely
plastic. In addition, the material behavior inside an ini-
tial yield surface is purely elastic. The elasto-plastic
response between the initial and the ultimate yield
surfaces is characterized by a fuzzy set representing
conditions between the elastic and plastic states.
2 CONSTITUTIVE MODEL BASED ON THE
FUZZY SET PLASTICITY
For the fuzzy set plasticity theory, a real number ( )
on the interval [0, 1] is assigned to each point in the
region F < 0 (F is the yield function). If the point lies
on the yield surface F = 0, the value of the membership
function ( ) is equal to zero; while the point lies
in the purely elastic region, the corresponding value of
( ) is equal to one. Thus, the membership function
( ) for the fuzzy set F 0 represents the member-
ship degree of to the set of purely elastic material

353
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK

Figure 1. The Fuzzy yield surface specified by a given
constant value of the membership function.
behavior. Instead of determining the plastic modulus H
from classical plasticity theory, H is defined in terms
of the value of a membership function ( ) (0, 1).
Stress control formulation for the model is relatively
straightforward and easily implemented. The stress
control incremental stress strain relation in the p q
space can be formulated as follows:
Figure 2. Effective stress path under undrained cyclic
loading.
The deviatoric ultimate yield surface can be
described as
where a1 = Mc + ; a0 is a material constant;
is the Lode angle. The elliptical function g() deter-
mines the shape of the trace of the ultimate yield
surface in any deviatoric plane. The state parameter
is the difference between the current void ratio
and the critical void ratio, i.e. = e ec . For loose
soil, > 0; and for dense soil, < 0. Assuming that
dev 0, plastic volumetric strain is related to the void
ratio increment de.

 np
p
where K = K0 is the elastic bulk modulus and 1) For loose soil, e > ec , < 0
 np 0 p
p
G = G0 is the elastic shear modulus, which
p0
relate to the effective confinement. p0 is the reference
confining pressure, and K0 and G0 are measured at p0 .

2) For dense soil, e < ec , > 0

  np
Md dsdp
where Hd = Hd + , is the devi-
1 dsd +1
p0
atoric plastic modulus, which is related to the effective
confinement; Hd is the hardening modulus of the
deviatoric ultimate yield surface; d is the deviatoric From equation (8), we observe that this model can
membership function; Md and sd are model param- describe the softening behavior of dense sands.
eters; nd is the normal of the deviatoric loading q
surface and md = Tnd is the flow direction. The trans- The effective stress ratio is defined as = .
p
formation matrix T is introduced here to apply the Below Phase Transformation Surface (PTS), i.e.
non-associated flow rule of the deviatoric portion of < PT : contraction takes place, pore pressure u
the plastic
deformation.
 increases and the mean effective confining stress p
B 0 decreases.
T= , where B is the dilatancy parameter.The
0 1 On PTS, i.e. = PT : no volumetric change takes
parameter B determines the dilatancy behavior, such place, and the mean effective confining stress p
that B = 0 represents no dilatancy at all. remains constant.

354
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
 Above PTS, i.e. > PT : dilation takes place, pore 30
pressure u decreases and the mean effective confining
stress p increases. 20

deviatoric stress q (kPa)

Based on experimental results and observations, the
coupled shear-dilation mainly relates to: 1) Current 10
effective stress ratio ; 2) State parameter ; 3) Load-
ing, unloading and reloading conditions. Therefore, a 0
feasible expression for B is:
Loading: -10
Below PTS:
-20

-30
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
deviatoric strain

Above PTS:
Figure 3. Deviatoric stress deviatoric strain response
curve.

80

70
pore water pressure (kPa)

Unloading:
60

50

40

30
where 1 , 2 and are model parameters needed to be 20
determined.
The locking ultimate yield surface can be 10
described as 0
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
deviatoric strain

Figure 4. Pore water pressure deviatoric strain response

The explicit expression for the fuzzy set plasticity curve.
model is,
30

20
deviatoric stress q (kPa)

10

-10

-20

-30
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
effective mean stress p (kPa)
3 MODEL RESPONSES
Figure 5. Deviatoric stress effective mean stress response
Example 1: Undrained cyclic shear test, the total mean curve.
stress is kept constant of 100 kPa and the deviatoric
stress increases gradually from 0 to 30 kPa. The model initial deviatoric stress increases gradually from 0 to
responses are shown in Figures 3 through 6. 30 kPa and then the cyclic loading is from 15 to 30 kPa.
Example 2: Undrained cyclic shear loading, the The parameters are the same as those of example 1. The
total mean stress is kept constant of 100 kPa and the model responses are shown in Figures 7 through 10.

355
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
 30
0.8
pore water pressure ratio (u/p)

0.7
25
0.6

deviatoric stress q (kPa)

20
0.5

0.4 15

0.3
10
0.2

0.1 5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
number of cycles
effective mean stress p (kPa)

Figure 6. Pore pressure build-up number of loading cycles

Figure 9. Deviatoric stress effective mean stress response
curve.
curve.
30
0.7

25 0.6
pore water pressure ratio (u/p)
deviatoric stress q (kPa)

0.5
20

0.4
15
0.3
10
0.2

5
0.1

0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
deviatoric strain number of cycles

Figure 7. Deviatoric stress deviatoric strain response Figure 10. Pore pressure build-up number of loading
curve. cycles curve.

80 1) Deviatoric stress-strain curves, as shown in Figures

70 3 and 7, describe a cycle-by-cycle degradation in
pore water pressure (kPa)

strength.
60 2) Figures 4 and 8 show that the volume change of soil
50 skeleton tends to approach a steady state value.
3) Figures 5 and 9 show that under undrained condi-
40 tions, the dilation induced increase in volume leads
30
to an immediate reduction in pore water pressure
and associated increase in effective confinement.
20 4) Figure 6 and 10 clearly show that cyclic shear
10
loading causes a progressive pore water pressure
build-up as well as cyclic pore water pressure
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
variations.
deviatoric strain 5) Comparing Figure 10 with Figure 6, we observe that
under smaller loading cycles, pore pressure build-
Figure 8. Pore water pressure deviatoric strain response up is slower.
curve.

The numerical simulation responses are consistent 4 CONCLUSION

with a large number of undrained laboratory exper-
iments conducted to study the cyclic behavior of A stress control kinematic cyclic plasticity constitu-
sands. tive model based on the fuzzy set plasticity theory is

356
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
proposed to simulate soil dilation and cyclic mobility
under cyclic loading. The fuzzy set plasticity for-
mulation and the membership function are described.
In the enhanced model, traditional concepts related to
critical state, state parameter and phase transformation
surface are employed and a new expression of dila-
tancy parameter is proposed to describe the nonlinear
volumetric changes of granular soils. The enhanced
fuzzy set plasticity constitutive model formulation is
transparent and accurate, and simplifies the computer
programming of the constitutive driver. The numeri-
cal simulation results show that the enhanced model is
able to capture not only the general nonlinear behavior
of soil, but also the essential soil characteristics, such
as confinement dependency, contraction and dilation,
pore water pressure buildup, liquefaction and so on.
REFERENCES
Bardet, J. P., Huang, Q. and Chi, S. W. 1993. Numerical
prediction for model No.1. Proceeding of the Interna-
tional Conference on the Verification of Numerical Pro-
cedures for the Analysis of Soil Liquefaction Problems,
Arulanandan, K., and Scott, R. F., Editors, Vol. 1, Davis,
C.A., 141152, Balkema.
Been, K. and Jefferies, M. G. 1985. A state parameter for
sands. Geotechnique, 35(1), 99112.
Biot, M. A. 1962. Mechanics of deformation and acoustic
propagation in porous media. Journal of Applied Physics,
33, 14821498.
357
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
Castro, G. 1975. Liquefaction and cyclic mobility of saturated
sands. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, 101, GT6, 551569.
Iai, S. 1991. A strain space multiple mechanism model
for cyclic behavior of sand and its application. Earth-
quake Engineering Research Note No. 43, Port and Harbor
Institute, Ministry of Transport, Japan.
Klisinski, M. 1988. Plasticity theory based on fuzzy
sets. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 114(4),
563582.
Klisinski, M., Abifadel, N., Runesson, K., and Sture, S. 1991.
Modeling of the behavior of dry sand by an elasto-plastic
fuzzy set model. Computers and Geotechnics, 11,
229261.
Manzari, M. T., and Dafalias, Y. F. 1997. A critical state two-
surface plasticity model for sands. Geotechnique, 47, 2,
255272.
Prevost, J. H. 1981. Constitutive equations for soil media.
Proceedings NATO Advanced Study Institute on Numeri-
cal Methods in Geomechanics, Portugal, 79102.
Prevost, J. H. 1985. A simple plasticity theory for fric-
tional cohesionless soils. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 4, 1, 917.
Sture, S., Mould, J. C. and Ko, H. Y. 1982. Elastic-plastic
anisotropic hardening constitutive model and predic-
tion of behavior for dry quartz sand. Constitutive Rela-
tions for Soil, 227248, Results of the International
Workshop on Constitutive Relations for Soils, Grenoble,
Edited by Gudehus, G., Darve, F. and Vardoulakis, I.,
A. A. Balkema.
Yang, Z. 2000. Numerical modeling of earthquake site
response including dilation and liquefaction. Ph.D Thesis,
Columbia University.