Soil Liquefaction: Experimental

and Field Investigations

Prof. T. G. Sitharam
Department of Civil Engineering and Chairman, CiSTUP
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore-560 012.

IIT Roorkee, 26
th
Dec 2012
Jan 26 2001
Soil Liquefaction
Introduced by Casagrande in 1936
The effective strength of saturated
cohesion less soil is reduced
drastically due to sudden loading.



w
u
w
'
u stress Effective = =
( ) tan u
tan strength Shear
w
'
=
= =
Liquefaction process

Liquefaction occurs
when solid material
transforms into
liquid state due to
the increased pore
pressure
Issue of liquefaction and ground failure
Northridge, 1994

Liquefaction of Bhuj Earthquake
Close to epicenter
Liquefaction
Rann of Kutch
Sand Blow
fjfg
Liquefaction Effects Observed
in India
Bhuj Earthquake 2001
fjfg
Satellite image of Liquefaction
at Bhuj

Jan 15, 2001
Jan 31, 2001
http://earthobs
ervatory.nasa.g
ov
More than 10,000
sq km area was
liquefied during
Bhuj earthquake
Liquefaction during Bhuj Earthquake 2001
Field investigations have found abundant evidence of mud volcanos, sand boils, and fissures from which salty ground water erupted over
an area exceeding 10,000 square kilometers. Evidence of the expelled water can also be seen on the MISR images.
Pre -January 15 Post January 31, 2001
Liss III FCC images
"false-color (MISR) Images
9
Million Dollar Bridge after 1964 Alaska
earthquake
Showa Bridge after 1964 Niigata earthquake
Building in Kobe after 1995 earthquake
1964
1995
1999
2001
Bridge in Taiwan after 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake
Kandla port building after 2001
Bhuj earthquake
Damages due to local site effects and liquefaction
in earthquakes
Earthquake Damage in Mexico City,
Mexico, September 19, 1985 - resonance
1985
The effect of the subsoils on the earthshaking and
building damage is emphasized.
10
Guerro EQ 1985 Mexico city, Mexico
Spitak EQ 1988 Leninakan, Armenia (Soviet U)
Loma Prieta EQ 1989 San Francisco bay area, US
Kobe EQ 1995 coastal areas of city, Japan
Kocaeli EQ 1999 Adapazari, Turkey
Erzincan 1992 Turkey, resonance
Bhuj EQ 2001 Bhuj, India-Liquefaction
Christchurch , New Zealand Earthquake 2010

Ground Failure Resulting from
Liquefaction
Bearing capacity failure of
foundations
Sand Boils
Flow failure of slopes
Lateral spreads
Rising of buried structures to the
surface
Retaining wall failure
Landslides and floods


Liquefaction Susceptibility
and Potential
Liquefaction Susceptibility
Evaluation is done by considering the soil
properties alone
Earthquake loading is not taken into
account
Liquefaction Potential
Both soil properties and earthquake
loading are considered
Liquefaction Susceptibility
Based on Soil Properties
Age of the soil
Index properties of soil
Shape of particles
Relative density of soil
Permeability of soil
Liquefaction Susceptibility
Index Properties Chinese Criteria

w = 0.87LL
Saturated moisture content, w (%)
NON-LIQUEFIABLE SOIL:
- w < 0.87LL or LL > 33.5
- or Clay fraction > 20%
- or Plasticity Index > 13
LL = 33.5
POTENTIALLY LIQUEFIABLE SOIL IF:
- Clay fraction (0.005 mm) is less than 20%
- Plasticity Index is less than or equal to 13.
L
i
q
u
i
d

L
i
m
i
t
,

L
L

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40
60
80
Chinese Criteria Adapted to ASTM Definitions of Soil
Properties (Perlea et al., 1999)
Characterization of Liquefaction
Resistance
In-situ tests
SPT
CPT
MASW

Evaluation of
Liquefaction Potential
Peak acceleration
Magnitude
= 0.65 r
d
PGA
g o
vo
o
vo
1
MSF
|
|
.
|

\
|
= = =
Demand
Capacity
Loading
Resistance
CSR
CRR
FS
SPT
CPT
V
s
Most research
Issues with Existing Methods of Characterizing
the Earthquake Loading










Considers single
ground motion hazard
level
Single earthquake
magnitude 7.5 and
MSF takes care of EQ
magnitudes

max
0.65
vo d
vo
r
CSR
g
a
MSF
'
o
=
o
(after Youd et al. 2001)
Liquefiable
Non-Liquefiable
Depth Reduction Factor - r
d

The Shear stress at a depth
h is calculated by
assuming that the soil
column is rigid.
r
d
is introduced to account
for the flexibility of soils



( )
max
rigid body
a
h
g
t =
( ) ( )
d
deformable soil rigid body
r t t =
Seed and Idriss,
1971
r
d
Cetin and Seed (2004)
Evaluates r
d
as a function of
Depth
Earthquake magnitude
Ground acceleration
Soil Stiffness

*
,12
*
,12
*
max
,12
0.341( 0.0785 7.586)
*
max
,12
*
max
,12
0.341(0.0785 7.586)
23.013 2.949 0.999 0.0525
1
16.258 0.201
( , , , )
23.013 2.949 0.999 0.0525
1
16.258 0.201
s
r
s
w
s
d V
s d
w
s
V
a M V
e
r d Mw a V
a M V
e
c
o
+ +
+
(
(
(

(
(
(

+ +
+
+
=
+ +
+
+
d
Magnitude Reduction Factor
Earthquake Magnitude, M
W

M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

S
c
a
l
i
n
g

F
a
c
t
o
r
,

M
S
F

Youd and Noble, 1997
2.24
2.56
10
W
MSF
M
=
Youd et al., 2001
Assessment of Liquefaction Potential Based on
SPT Data (Deterministic Method)
Liquefiable
Non-Liquefiable
Seed and Idriss,
1985
&
Youd et al., 2001

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
24
DSHA assumes a single scenario with a
single magnitude and a single distance.
We dont know when EQs will occur, where
they will occur and how big they will be.
PSHA assumes many scenarios considering
all magnitudes, all distances and all effects.
PSHA characterizes uncertainty in location,
size and frequency, of earthquakes &
combines all of them to compute the hazard.
Steps Taken to Evaluate the
Liquefaction Potential
Peak horizontal acceleration (PHA) values at
bed rock level was evaluated using Probabilistic
seismic hazard analysis.
Since site characterization data was not
available, the surface level peak ground
acceleration (PGA) were evaluated for four
NEHRP site classes (Site class A to D).
Deaggregated the seismic hazard with respect
to magnitude
Evaluation of liquefaction return period based
on PGA values.
Probabilistic Correlations Based
on SPT Data
Liao et al.,
1988
Probabilistic Correlations Based
on SPT Data
Cetin et al. (2004)
1 60 1 2
5 3 4 0 6
L
( ) (1 ) ln
ln (ln( / )
P
eq
a v
N FC CSR
Mw P FC
c
u u
u u o u u
o
'
(
(
(
(
(
(

+
+ +
= u
0.65
i vo
eq d
vo
a
CSR r
g
'
o
=
o
Where PL Probability of liquefaction (as a
fraction);
standard normal cumulative distribution
function;
(N
1
)60 corrected N value;
FC fineness content in percentage;
CSR
eq
cyclic stress ratio without MSF;
Mw moment magnitude of earthquake; '

v0
- effective vertical pressure at the given
depth;
Pa atmospheric pressure (in the same unit as

v0
);
u
1
u
6
- regression coefficients and

z
- model uncertainty.
CPT Based Correlation
Deterministic Method
Stark and Olson
(1995)
CPT Based Correlation Probabilistic
Method (Moss et al., 2006)
1.045
1 1
0
(0.110 ) 0.001 (1 0.850 )
7.177ln( ) 0.848ln 0.002(ln( ) 20.923
PL
1.632
c c f f f
v
q q R R c R
CSR Mw o
'
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

+ + + +

=u
qc
1
- normalized tip resistance
R
f
- friction ratio (in
percentage)
c - normalization exponent
Where P
L
- probability of liquefaction;
q
c1
- normalized tip resistance;
R
f
friction ratio (in percentage);
c - normalization exponent;
CSR - cyclic stress ratio;
Mw -moment magnitude of earthquake;

v 0
- effective overburden pressure.
Vs based Correlations
Andrus and Stokoe
(2000)
A Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Curve
1.00E-11
1.00E-10
1.00E-09
1.00E-08
1.00E-07
1.00E-06
1.00E-05
1.00E-04
1.00E-03
1.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E+00
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA(g) at ground level
M
e
a
n

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
a
t
e

o
f

E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
Total hazard
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.4
5.6
4.2
5.8
4.0
Performance-Based Earthquake
Engineering
Uncertainty in earthquake loading.
Consider the entire range of earthquake
magnitude and acceleration.
Evaluation of liquefaction return period is
possible.
Performance-Based Earthquake
Engineering
Uncertainty in earthquake loading.
Consider the entire range of earthquake
magnitude and acceleration.
Evaluation of liquefaction return period is
possible.
DV IM
G DV DM dG DM EDP dG EDP IM
d
=
}}}
Intensity
measure
Engineerin
g demand
parameter
Damage
measure
Decision
variable
Repair
cost
Crack
width
FS
L

PGA
( ) ( / ) ( / ) ( / ) ( ) DV P DV dv DM dm P DM IM P EDP IM IM = > =
}}
Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for
Probabilistic Liquefaction Evaluation
Seismic hazard is sub divided into
number of acceleration and magnitude
increments
Incremental mean annual rate of
exceedance for these acceleration-
magnitude combinations are determined
MSF is not considered in evaluating the
CSR value.


Probabilistic Performance Based Evaluation
of Factor of Safety Against Liquefaction
0.65
i vo
eq d
vo
a
CSR r
g
'
o
=
o
max
*
i
L L
1 1
[FS FS a , ] ,
a
M
i
L
N
N
j a j
FS
j i
P m m
-
= =
A = < , A

i
*
1 60 1 2 , 3 4 0 5 6
L L
( ) (1 ) ln( ) ln( ) (ln( / )
P[FS FS a , ]
eq i L j v a
j
N FC CSR FS m P FC
m
c
u u u u o u u
o
'
-
( + + +
< , = u
(
(

,
i
a j
m A
Kramer and
Mayfield, 2007

Increme
ntal
MARE
for a
i

and m
j




Where - annual rate at which factor of safety
will be less than
N
M
number of magnitude increments;
N
a
number of peak acceleration increments;

incremental annual frequency of exceedance for
acceleration a
i
and magnitude m
j

*
L
FS
A
,
i
a j
m A

IM
PGA
PGA
P[FS
L
>FS
L
* | PGA,
m
1
]
1.0
0.0
Performance-Based Liquefaction Hazard Evaluation
A
IM
m
1

Probabilistic Evaluation of
Corrected N-Value Required to
Prevent Liquefaction





max
*
i
req req
1 1
[N N a , ] ,
a
M
i
req
N
N
j a j
N
j i
P m m
-
= =
= > , A

i
req 1 2 , 3 4 0 5 6
req req
N (1 ) ln( ) ln( ) (ln( / )
P[N N a , ]
eq i j v a
j
FC CSR m P FC
m
c
u u u u o u u
o
- '
-
( + + +
> , = u
(
(

Kramer and Mayfield, 2007
Case Study - Gujarat
Earthquake Details in Gujarat
Total Number of
Earthquakes - 3122
A Typical Seismic Hazard Curve
1.00E-11
1.00E-10
1.00E-09
1.00E-08
1.00E-07
1.00E-06
1.00E-05
1.00E-04
1.00E-03
1.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E+00
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA(g) at ground level
M
e
a
n

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
a
t
e

o
f

E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
Total hazard
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.4
5.6
4.2
5.8
4.0
Liquefaction Hazard Curves
1.E-08
1.E-06
1.E-04
1.E-02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Corrected N Value
A
n
n
u
a
l

r
a
e

o
f

E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
Bhuj
Jamnagar
Rajkot
Ahmadabad
Surat
Vadodara
Corrected N Value Required to
Prevent Liquefaction for 475 years








Effect of fines on Liquefaction
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
1 10 100 1000
Cycles to Initial Liquefaction (N
L
)
C
y
c
l
i
c

S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
t
i
o

(
C
S
R
)
Clean Sand (CRR=0.184)
Clean Sand+5%Silt (CRR=0.2025)
Clean Sand+10%Silt (CRR=0.15)
Clean Sand+15%Silt (CRR=0.15)
Clean Sand+20%Silt (CRR=0.138)
Clean Sand+25%Silt (CRR=0.114)
Clean Sand+30%Silt (CRR=0.081)
Clean Sand+35%Silt (CRR=0.106)
Clean Sand+40%Silt (CRR=0.0995)
Clean Sand+45%Silt (CRR=0.10008)
Clean Sand+50%Silt (CRR=0.113)
Clean Sand+60%Silt (CRR=0.123)
Clean Sand+75%Silt (CRR=0.1148)
Silt (CRR=0.1108)
'
3c
= 100kPa, f = 0.1Hz, RD
c
= 53%
N = 20

CRR = 0.0772e
0.0178(RD )
CRR = 0.0311e
0.0263(RD )
CRR = 0.0081e
0.0387(RD )
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Relative Density, RD (%)
C
y
c
l
i
c

R
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

R
a
t
i
o

(
C
R
R
)
Clean Sand
Clean Sand + 5%Silt
Clean Sand + 10%SIlt
Clean Sand + 15%Silt
Clean Sand + 20%Silt
Clean Sand + 25%Silt
Clean Sand + 30%Silt
Clean Sand + 35%Silt
Clean Sand + 40%Silt
Clean Sand + 45%Silt
Clean Sand + 50%Silt
Clean Sand + 60%Silt
Clean Sand + 75%Silt
Silt
Upper Bound Curve
Mean Curve
Lower Bound Curve
'
3c
= 100kPa, f = 0.1Hz
Limitations of cyclic triaxial laboratory experiments
Non uniformity of strains and stress fields
End restraint effects
Membrane penetration effects
Difficulties in preparing identical loose
specimens at low confining pressures
Repeatability (with in lab) and reproducibly
(lab to lab) of test results
Experimental investigations:
(Vaid et al. 1990; Hyodo et al., 1994; Zlatovic and
Ishihara, 1995; Baziar and Dobry, 1995; Toyota et al.,
1995; Talaganov, 1996; Vaid and Thomas, 1997; Lade
and Yamamuro,1997; Amini et al, 2000; Naeini, 2001;
Naeini and Baziar, 2004; Govida Raju, 2005)
Cyclic behaviour of granular materials
using DEM:
Hakuno et al, (1988); Kishino (1990); Tan (1990);
Sitharam (1991); Ng (1993); Nakase, Takeda and
Oda (1999) Ravichandran and Meguro (2001);
Sitharam (2003); Dinesh (2003); Ashmawy et al
(2003); Roberto (2004); Mourad Zeghal and Usama
El Shamy (2005).
6
Calculation Cycle
t
f
f
k
f
t
k
n
f
t
n
c,
n
t
f
f
k
f
t
k
n
f
t
n
c,
n
k
f
t
k
n
f
t
n
c,
n
f
t
k
n
f
t
n
c,
n
t
k
n
f
t
n
c, c,
n
Imposed boundary
condition
Forces
Gravity Forces
Law Of motion
Integrate Acceleration
Displacements
Contact
law
Imposed Boundary
conditions
Modified program Trubal
Based on Cundall(1979, 1984)
Implemented the concept of micromechanics Waterloo Version
Subroutines incorporated to extract micromechanical parameters such as average
coordination number, anisotropic coefficients etc.
A subprogram to calculate- overlap vol, bfr, void ratio
Periodic space boundary condition
A subroutine subassembly - to look at phase transformation
Plot files were developed using java
Discrete Element Method
Undrained tests Constant Volume simulations - Ng (1993); Ng and Dobry (1994); Nimbkar (1996);
Dubujet and Dedecker (1998); Nagaraja Rao (1998); Sitharam (2003); and Dinesh (2003).
12
Parameters involved in Micromechanics
N
M
=
M= Total number of contact points
N= Total number of particles
Average Coordination number
r
ij
r
ij
r
d
a a a
2
3
=
n
ij
n
ij
n
d
a a a
2
3
=
t
ij
t
ij
t
d
a a a
2
3
=
Micro structural features are quantified by introducing
anisotropy coefficients:
r
ij
a
n
ij
a
t
ij
a
are the symmetric second order deviatoric tensors representing
coefficient of fabric, normal contact force and tangential contact force anisotropy.
Stress-force-fabric relationship is developed from these parameters.
Contribution of each component can be understood explicitly and offer
micromechanical explanations associated with shear deformation. (Rothenburg
and Bathurst, 1989; Chanthawarangul, 1993 and Sitharam et al., 2002).
13
Tangential contact force
Average normal contact force
Contact orientation
Cyclic triaxial numerical simulations using DEM
Test
series:
Initial state
of assembly
Stress
path
during
shearing
Boundary
control
Void ratio of
compacted
assembly,
(e
c
)
Confining
pressure
(kPa)
Amplitud
e of axial
strain,
(%)
1
Isotropically
compressed
Undrained
Strain
controlled
0.59
0.58
0.54
25
50
100
0.14 to
0.6
0.3 to 1.2
0.6 to
1.67
2
Isotropically
compressed
Undrained
Strain
controlled
0.56 50
0.24 to
0.73

Numerical simulation program
Shear modulus = 70 GPa
Poissons ratio = 0.3
Density = 2650 kg/m
3

Coefficient of contact friction = 0.3
Particle size = 0.4 2 mm
Particle properties
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.1 1 10
Paricle size (mm)
%

F
i
n
e
r

Assembly of spheres
14
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Number of cycles
A
x
i
a
l

s
t
r
a
i
n
,

c

(
%
)
1 2 3
o
3
= 50 kPa; e
c
= 0.58
c = 0.6 %; f= 1.42 Hz
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Number of cycles
D
e
v
i
a
t
o
r
i
c

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

q

(
k
P
a
)
1 2 3
o
3
= 50 kPa; e
c
= 0.58
c = 0.6 %; f= 1.42 Hz

Strain controlled cyclic triaxial simulations
Axial strain Vs number of cycles
Deviator stress Vs number of cycles
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Mean p (kPa)
D
e
v
i
a
t
o
r

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

q

(
k
P
a
)
o
3
= 25 kPa; e
c
= 0.59
f = 1.42 Hz
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deviatoric strain (%)
D
e
v
i
a
t
o
r

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

q

(
k
P
a
)
o
3
= 25 kPa; e
c
= 0.59
f = 1.42 Hz
Variation of deviator
stress with deviatoric
strain
Variation of deviator stress with mean p
Liquefaction
15
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of cycles
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

n
u
m
b
e
r
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
P
o
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

r
a
t
i
o
,

U
o
3
= 25 kPa; e
c
= 0.59
f = 1.42 Hz
Average coordination number
Pore pressure ratio
Plot of average coordination
number and pore pressure
ratio with number of cycles
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Mean p (kPa)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

n
u
m
b
e
r
o
3
= 25 kPa; e
c
= 0.59
f = 1.42 Hz



-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of cycles
C
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
Vertical contacts
(80 -90)
Horizontal contacts
(0 -10)

Average
coordination
Vs mean p
Change in the number of
vertical and horizontal
contacts Vs number of
cycles
16
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1 10 100 1000 10000
Number of cycles for initial liquefaction
S
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
a
i
n

(
%
)
= 50 kPa, = 0.56 - 0.58
25 - 100 kPa, = 0.59 -0.54
Experimental results
Talaganov (1996)
o
3
=
e
c
Present study
o
3
e
c

Relationship between shear strain and number of
cycles for initial liquefaction
17
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, (%)
P
o
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

r
a
t
i
o
,

U
= 25 - 100 kPa
= 50 kPa; = 0.56
o
3
o
3
Dobry (1985)
N = 10
Upper bound
Lower bound
e
c

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Cycle ratio (N/N
L
)
P
o
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

r
a
t
i
o

(
U
)
= 100 kPa; = 0.6 - 1.1 %
= 0.6 %; = 25 - 100 kPa
= 50 kPa; = 0.56 - 0.58
o
3
o
3
o
3
c
c
e
c
Talaganov (1996)
Upper bound
Lower bound

Pore water pressure generation during cyclic loading
The pore water pressure computed
based on the mean pressure between
the undrained (effective) and drained
(total) stress path during strain
controlled cyclic triaxial tests.
Relationship between pore pressure
ratio and cycle ratio for sand samples
for different parameters
Pore pressure ratio Vs shear strain
at ten cycles
18
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial strain, c (%)

D
e
v
i
a
t
o
r
i
c

a
n
i
s
o
t
r
o
p
i
c

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
(
a
d
n
/
a
d
r
/
a
d
t
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
D
e
v
i
a
t
o
r

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

q

(
k
P
a
)
a
d
n
a
d
r
a
d
t
o
3
= 100 kPa; e
c
= 0.54
c = 0.6%
q
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial strain, c (%)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

n
u
m
b
e
r
c = 0.3 %
0.5 %
0.6 %
o
3
= 100 kPa
e
c
= 0.54
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial strain, c (%)
D
e
v
i
a
t
o
r

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

q

(
k
P
a
)
c = 0.3%
0.6 %
0.5%
o
3
= 100 kPa
e
c
= 0.54
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 100 200 300 400 500
Mean p (kPa)
D
e
v
i
a
t
o
r

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

q

(
k
P
a
)
c = 0.6
c = 0.5
c = 0.3
o
3
= 100 kPa
e
c
=0.54
Post liquefaction behaviour of granular materials
Deviator
stress Vs
mean p
Deviator anisotropic coefficients and deviator
stress Vs axial strain
Deviator
stress Vs
axial strain
Average
coordinaion
number Vs
axial strain
19
Dynamic properties of granular materials
Details of numerical test program
Sl
No

Initial state of the
assembly

Stress path

Frequency
(Hz)
Void ratio of
initially
compacted
assembly (e
c
)
Confining
pressure, s
3

(kPa)
Amplitude of
axial strain,
(%)
1
Isotropically
compressed
Undrained
1.42
0.51
0.48
0.45
50
100
200
7.0x10
-5

to 2
6.85 x10
-5
to 2
7.2 x10
-5

to 2
0.48
0.51
0.54
100
6.85 x10
-5
to
7.1 x10
-1

1.42 0.14 0.48 100 6.85 x10
-5
to 2
2
Constant p 1.42 0.48 100 6.85 x10
-5
to 2
3
Drained 1.42 0.48 100 6.85 x10
-5
to 2
4
Anisotropically
compressed
Undrained 1.42 0.48 100 6.85 x10
-5
to 2
20

Axial
Strain
(c)
Deviator
Stress
(od)
A
T
A
L
E
c
max
Axial
o
max
Deviator
max
max
c
o
= E
c ) 1 ( + =
) 1 ( 2 +
=
E
G
T
L
A
A
D
t 4
=
Where = Poissons ratio and may be estimated as
0.5 for saturated undrained specimens.
Damping ratio, D is a measure of energy
dissipated to the maximum elastic strain energy
Where A
L
= area enclosed by the hysteresis loop
A
T
= area enclosed by the shaded triangle
1
st
cycle Hysteresis loop
21
Hysteresis loop for different
cyclic strain amplitude
Variation of shear modulus with
shear strain
Variation of damping ratio with
shear strain
22
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, (%)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g

r
a
t
i
o
,

(
D
)
= 50 kPa; = 0.51
= 100 kPa; = 0.48
= 200 kPa = 0.45
o
3
o
3
o
3
e
c
e
c
e
c
f = 1.42 Hz
Seed and Idriss (1970)
Upper bound
Lower bound
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, (%)
M
o
d
u
l
u
s

r
a
t
i
o

(
G
/
G
0
)
= 0.48
= 0.51
= 0.54
Seed and Idriss, (1970)
Upper bound
Lower bound
o
3
= 100 kPa
f = 1.42 Hz
e
c
e
c
e
c

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, (%)
M
o
d
u
l
u
s

r
a
t
i
o

(
G
/
G
0
)
= 50 kPa; = 0.51
= 100 kPa; = 0.48
= 200 kPa; = 0.45
Seed and Idriss (1970)
Upper bound
Lower bound
o
3
f = 1.42 Hz
o
3
o
3
e
c
e
c
e
c
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, (%)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g

r
a
t
i
o

(
D
)
= 0.48
= 0.51
= 0.54
Seed and Idriss (1970)
Upper bound
Lower bound
o
3
= 100 kPa
f = 1.42 Hz
e
c
e
c
e
c

Effect of confining pressure Effect of void ratio
Modulus
ratio vs shear
strain
Modulus ratio Vs
shear strain
Damping ratio
Vs shear
strain
Damping ratio
Vs shear
strain
23
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.1 1 10
Particle size (mm)
%

f
i
n
e
r
Grad 1; Cu = 1.36
Grad 2 Cu = 1.18

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, (%)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g

r
a
t
i
o


(
D
)
Cu = 1.35
Cu = 1.18
Seed and Idriss(1970)
Upper bound
Lower bound
e
c
= 0.48
f = 1.42Hz

Particle size
gradation
curve
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, (%)
S
h
e
a
r

M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,

G

(
M
P
a
)


Cu = 1.18
Cu = 1.35
e
c
= 0.48
o
3
= 100 kPa
f = 1.42 Hz
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, (%)
M
o
d
u
l
u
s

r
a
t
i
o
,

G
/
G
0
Cu = 1.18
Cu = 1.35
Seed and Idriss (1970)
Upper bound
Lower bound
e
c
= 0.48
o
3
= 100 kPa
f = 1.42 Hz

Effect of gradation
Shear
Modulus vs
shear strain
Damping
ratio vs shear
strain
Modulus
ratio vs shear
strain
24
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.100.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10

A
x
i
a
l

s
t
r
a
i
n
,

c

(
%
)
time, sec
frequency, f = 0.14 Hz


A
x
i
a
l

s
t
r
a
i
n
,

c

(
%
)
frequency, f = 1.42 Hz
Effect of frequency
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, (%)
S
h
e
a
r

m
o
d
u
l
u
s
,

G

(
M
P
a
)
f = 1.42 Hz
f = 0.14 Hz
o
3
= 100 kPa
e
c
= 0.48
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, (%)
M
o
d
u
l
u
s

r
a
t
i
o
,

G
/
G
0
f = 1.42 Hz
f = 0.14 Hz
o
3
= 100 kPa
e
c
= 0.48
Seed and Idriss (1970)
Upper bound
Lower bound

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, (%)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g

r
a
t
i
o
,


D
f = 1.42 Hz
f = 0.14 Hz
Seed and Idriss(1970)
Upper bound
Lower bound
e
c
= 0.48
o
3
= 100 kPa

Shear modulus
Vs shear strain
Axial strain Vs time
Modulus ratio
Vs shear strain
Damping ratio
Vs shear strain
25
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, (%)
S
h
e
a
r

m
o
d
u
l
u
s
,

G

(
M
P
a
)
q/p = 0
q/p = 0.6
o
3
= 100 kPa
e
c
= 0.48
f =1.42 Hz
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, (%)
M
o
d
u
l
u
s

r
a
t
i
o
,

G
/
G
0
q/p = 0
q/p = 0.6
o
3
= 100 kPa
e
c
= 0.48
f = 1.42 Hz
Seed and Idriss (1970)
Upper bound
Lower bound

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, (%)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g

r
a
t
i
o

(
D
)
q/p = 0
q/p = 0.6
o
3
= 100 kPa
e
c
= 0.48
f = 1.42 Hz
Seed and Idriss(1970)
Upper bound
Lower bound

Effect of Initial Anisotropy
Shear
modulus Vs
shear strain
Modulus
ratio Vs shear
strain
Damping ratio Vs shear strain
26

Constant p Drained test Undrained test
90 100 110
-100
0
100
q

(
k
P
a
)
80 100 120
Mean p (kPa)
98 100 102

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, (%)
S
h
e
a
r

m
o
d
u
l
u
s
,

G

(
M
P
a
)
Constant p cyclic triaxial test
Drained cyclic triaxial test
Undrained cyclic triaxial test
o
3
= 100 kPa; e = 0.48
f = 1.42 Hz

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, (%)
M
o
d
u
l
u
s

r
a
t
i
o
,

G
/
G
0
Undrained cyclic test
Drained cyclic test
Constant p cyclic test
Seed and Idriss (1970)
Upper bound
Lower bound
o
3
= 100 kPa; e
c
= 0.48
f = 1.42 Hz

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, (%)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g

r
a
t
i
o
Undrained cyclic test
Drained cyclic test
Constant p cyclic test
Seed and Idriss (1970)
Upper bound
Lower bound
o
3
= 100 kPa; e
c
= 0.48
f = 1.42 Hz

Effect of Stress Path
Shear modulus
Vs shear strain
Modulus ratio
Vs shear
strain
Deviator stress Vs mean p
Damping ratio
Vs shear
strain
27
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, (%)
M
o
d
u
l
u
s

r
a
t
i
o
,

G
/
G
0
= 50 - 100 kPa; = 0.51 -0.45
= 100 kPa; = 0.48 - 0.54
= 100 kPa; = 0.48; cu = 1.18 - 1.35
= 100 kPa; = 0.48; f = 0.42 - 1.42
= 100 kPa; = 0.48; q/p = 0 - 0.6
Constant p cyclic triaxial test
o
3
= 100 kPa; e
c
= 0.48; f = 1.42 Hz
Drained cyclic triaxial test
o
3
= 100 kPa; e
c
= 0.48; f = 1.42 Hz
Seed and Idriss (1970)
Upper bound
Lower bound
Undrained cyclic triaxial test
o
3
o
3
o
3
o
3
o
3
e
c
e
c
e
c
e
c
e
c

Modulus ratio Vs shear strain
28
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, (%)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g

r
a
t
i
o
,

(
D
)
= 50 - 100 kPa; = 0.51 - 0.45
= 100 kPa; = 0.48 -0.54
= 100 kPa; = 0.48; Cu = 1.18 -1.35
= 100 kPa; = 0.48; f = 0.42 - 1.42 Hz
= 100 kPa; = 0.48; q/p = 0 - 0.6
Constant p cyclic triaxial test
o
3
= 100 kPa; e
c
= 0.48; f = 1.42 Hz
Drained cyclic triaxial test
o
3
= 100 kPa; e
c
= 0.48; f = 1.42 Hz
o
3
o
3
o
3
o
3
e
c
e
c
e
c
Seed and Idriss (1970)
Upper bound
Lower bound
o
3
e
c
Undrained cyclic triaxial test
e
c

Damping ratio Vs shear strain
29
Conclusions
DEM simulates the features of liquefaction, pore water
pressure build up, post liquefaction behaviour and dynamic
properties of granular materials.
DEM results are comparable to experimental results
Captured the effects of initial void ratio, confining pressure and
amplitude of axial strain.
Liquefaction potential and pore water pressure generation exhibit an
unique relationship irrespective of confining pressure, initial void
ratio and amplitude of cyclic strains.
Post liquefaction undrained (constant volume) monotonic strength
depends on the amplitude of axial strain.
Insignificant effect of amplitude of axial strain on stress path has
been observed very similar to experimental investigation.
30