- 361 -

Free Field Analysis of Liquefiable Soils

Yong-wei Chen
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou, China
e-mail: cyz1654@.hotmail.com

Xian-qun Liu
Zhejiang Electric Power Design Institute, Hangzhou, China
e-mail: lxq8901@126.com

Hen-jun Dai
Shen-Yuan Geotechnical Engineering Co., ltd., Shanghai, China
e-mail: 270407810@qq.com

ABSTRACT
Liquefaction, seismic subsidence and lateral spreading should be considered when a sandy foundation in
the seabed or maritime province sustains strong seismic load. Zhaohui Yangs nested constitutive mode is
incorporated into OpenSees to evaluate its capacity of simulating soil liquefaction. A simple method to get
parameters is introduced and it shows good coincidence with the earthquake theory. Then an analysis of a
sandy free field which is in the strong earthquake area is constructed. The results give out the liquefaction
condition of the foundation and predict the seismic subsidence and lateral spreading, it would help us to do
the foundation reinforcement treatment with such cases.
KEYWORDS: liquefaction; new method; free field; OpenSees

INTRODUCTING
Soil structures such as river dikes, highway embankments, and earth dams have been
frequently damaged during past major earthquakes. In most cases, large deformations occurred
due to liquefaction of the supporting loose cohesionless foundation soil (Seed, 1968; Tani, 1996;
Krinitzsky and Hynes, 2002), resulting in cracking, settlement, lateral spreading, and slumping of
the overlying soil structures. In saturated sands, the mechanism of liquefaction-induced shear
deformation may be illustrated by (i) a cyclic-by-cyclic degradation in shear strength and (ii) a
regain in shear stiffness and strength at large shear strain excursions, along with an increase in
effective confinement. This type of response has been described as a form of cyclic mobility in a
large number of pioneering liquefaction studies (Seed and Lee, 1966; Castro, 1969; Casagrande,
1975).
Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. D 362

The Suralaya coal fired steam power plant was built in the sea in Banten Province in
Indonesia, and it is going to build a new open channel. As the foundation soil is loose sand and it
is in the strong earthquake area, we need to assess the potential of liquefaction and predict the
deformation of the foundation.
OpenSees is a software framework for developing applications to simulate the performance
of structural and geotechnical systems subjected to earthquakes. It has advanced capabilities for
modeling and analyzing the nonlinear response of systems using a wide range of material models,
elements, and solution algorithms. PressureDependMultiYield(PDMY) Material is one kind of
soil materials and it could simulate the liquefaction of the sand. It is based the theory of Yang
(Yang, 2000).
This paper proposes a quick method to get the parameters of PDMY material. Finally, a free
field analysis is constructed.
CONSTITUTIVE MODE
A numbers of constitutive models have been developed to simulate cyclic-mobility and/or
flow-liquefaction soil response. Based on the framework of multi-surface plasticity (Prevost,
1985; Iwan, 1967; Morz, 1967), Yang proposed his constitutive model (Yang, 2000).The main
components of this model are summarized as follows.
Following the classical plasticity convention, it is assumed that material elasticity is linear
and isotropic, and that nonlinearity and anisotropy result from plasticity. The selected yield
function forms a conical surface in stress space with its apes along the hydrostatic axis. In the
context of multi-surfaces plasticity, a number of similar yield surfaces with a common apex and
different sizes form the hardening zone, as show in Figure 1. The outmost surface is the envelope
of peak shear strength (failure envelope).

Figure 1: Conical yield surfaces in principal stress space and deviatoric plane (Prevost, 1985)
A pure deviatoric kinematic hardening rule is employed in order to generate hysteretic
response under arbitrary cyclic shear loading. This rule was modified from the original Morz rule
(Morz, 1967), for improved numerical robustness. Kinematic hardening dictates that yield
surfaces translate in stress space within the failure envelop.


In
dilatio
transf
soil re
T
mode
value
mediu
correl
based
is 21%
(
G
m
B
m
p

n granular ma
on). The bou
formation (PT
esponse varie
Figu
The PDMY pa
parameters
s for use wit
um-dense san
lations betwe
d on the Open
% and the voi
(kg/ m
3
)
max
(kPa) R
ax
(kPa)

PT
Pha
r
(kPa)
max

N Pre
c
d
1

d
2

l
1
L
l
2
L
l
3
L
aterials, shea
undary betwe
T) surface (Ish
s (Figure 2).
ure 2: Schem
PARAM
arameters can
and model c
th loose sand
nd(65% to 8
een a soil par
nSees manual
id ratio is 0.87
Tabl
Densi
Reference shea
Reference bulk
Friction a
ase transforma
Reference p
Peak shear
essure depende
Contraction p
Dilation para
Dilation para
Liquefaction p
Liquefaction p
Liquefaction p
ar loading ind
een contractio
hihara, 1985;
matic of consti
METERS
be broken in
constants. Th
d (relative de
5%), and de
rameters and
recommenda
76, all the par
le 1: Relation
ity
ar modulus
k modulus
angle
tion angle
pressure
r strain
ent coefficient
parameter
ameter 1
ameter 2
parameter 1
parameter 2
parameter 3
- 363 -
duces a coup
on and dilati
Kramer, 199
itutive model
OF PDM
nto three group
he OpenSees
nsity of 15%
ense sand(85
d the relative
ations. The re
rameters and r
ship for PDM
r
G
B

c
1
d =
2
d =
l
1
=10
l
1
=-35.484
2
0 l =
l
3
l
3

led volumetr
ion is commo
96).According
response (Elg
MY MAT
ps: geotechni
users manu
% to 35%), m
% to 100%)
density. So
elative density
relationships
MY parameter
2.11(D
r
)
0.1567
2
(2.17 )
10500
1
r
e
e

=
+
2(1 )
3(1 2 )
r r
B G

+
=

16.2 25
r
D = +
16.2 25
PT r
D = +
Constant
Constant
Constant
1.4172
0.0288
r
c D

=
1.147 0.2454
r
D =
6.9686 1.7187
r
D =
0 (D
r
<65%
4Dr+32.5 (D
0.0154ln 0
r
D
= 1 (D
r
85%
= 0 (D
r
> 85%
ric response (
only defined
g to the differ

gamal, 2003)
TERIAL
ical parameter
ual suggest s
medium sand(
. But there
a relationship
y of the sand
are given in T
rs
0.4
r
p


0
0
%)
D
r
65%)
.0012
%)
%)
(contraction o
by the phas
rent stress stat


rs, constitutiv
soil paramete
(35% to 65%
is no existin
p was derive
from the fiel
Table 1.
1.66E3
5.4E4
1.6E5
28
27
80
0.1
0.5
0.26
0
0
10
0.02
1
or
se
te;
ve
er
%),
ng
ed
ld
Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. D 364

LIQUEFACTION RESISTANCE
As the geological report said, the loose sand layer has a thickness of about 20m, and the fines
content is 25%.Also, the average count of SPT is 1.5.
In the first step, the SPT blow counts N
m
is corrected with effective overburden pressure and
fines content. Eq.1 shows the correction of effective overburden pressure.

N m
C N N =
60 1
) ( (1)
where N
m
=measured standard penetration resistance; C
N
=factors to normalize N
m
to a common
reference effective overburden stress.
Because SPT N-values increase with increasing effective overburden stress, the factor is
commonly calculated from the following equation (Liao and Whitman, 1986):
` ) / 100 (
5 . 0
0 v N
C = (2)
where C
N
normalize to an effective overburden pressure
0 v
of approximately 100 kPa. C
N
should
not exceed a value of 1.7.
The correction of fines content was developed by Idriss, as following:

60 1 60 1
) ( ) ( N N
cs
+ = (3)
where and =coefficients determined from the following relationships:
)] / 190 ( 76 . 1 exp[
2
FC = for 5%<FC<35% (4)
)] 1000 / ( 99 . 0 [
5 . 1
FC + = for 5%<FC<35% (5)
where FC=fines content.
After the corrections with SPT N-values, the cyclic resistance ratio at magnitude 7.5 is
calculated as the following equation:

200
1
] 45 ) ( 10 [
50
135
) (
) ( 34
1
2
60 1
60 1
60 1
5 . 7

+
+ +

=
cs
cs
cs
N
N
N
CRR
(6)
This equation is valid for
1 60
( ) N <30.
To adjust CRR to magnitudes smaller or larger than 7.5, Seed and Idriss (1982) introduced
correction factors termed magnitude scaling factors (MSFs). There are a set of MSF for various
earthquake magnitudes, as shown in Figure 3. Andrus and Stokoe (1997) scaling factors is used
here.




A

M
C
F
the ge

M

F
figure
stress



After establish
M
w

CRR
or any magni
eneral relation
M
w

N
inally, a rela
e shows that
ratio was hig
Figure 3
(Re


hing an array o
Ta
6
0.17
itude, there e
nship, as show
Table 3: Eq
6
5
ationship was
fewer loadin
gher.
3: Magnitude
eproduced fro

= MSF
CRR =
of M
w
, CRRs
able 2: CRRs
7
0.11
xits equivalen
wn in Tab.3
quivalent stre
7
11
s drawn betw
g cycles wer
- 365 -
scaling factor
m Youd and N

56 . 2
)
5 . 7
(

=
w
M
7
CRR MSF =
for different
s for different
7.5
0.085
nt uniform st
ess cycles for
7.5
15
ween the num
re required to


rs derived by
Noble 1997)

5 . 7

magnitude ar
t magnitude
8
5 0.
tress cycle. Se
different mag
8
2
mber of cycle
o induce to li

various inves


re known.
8.0
068
eed and Idris
gnitude
8.0
21
s and CRR (
quefaction w

stigators
(7
(8
8.5
0.06
s (1982) liste
8.5
26
(Figure 4).Th
when the cycli
7)
8)
ed
he
ic
V


single
eleme
move
(Figur
T
contro

where

Vol. 15 [20
CAC
The first ph
e element of
ent was defin
both vertical
re 5).
The cyclic inp
olled by CSR

e
0 v
=effect
When CSR=
10], Bund.
Figure 4
CULATE
hase of testin
undrained so
ned by four no
lly and horizo
F

put force was
R, as Eq.9

tive stress at t
=0.11, the inp
. D
4: Dynamic s
ED LIQU
g involved th
oil. Such an
odes: Node 1
ontally but lat
Figure 5: Sin
s a harmonic
F
the depth of 5
put force was
strength curve

UEFACTI
he application
element was
1 and 2 were
terally confin
ngle element m
function with
F=CSR2
5m.
shown as Fig
e for soil elem
ION RE
n of a stress-
s simple to p
fixed, while
ed by equal m
model geome
h a period of
0 v

gure 6
ment
SISTAN
-controlled cy
produce in O
nodes 3 and
movement in

etry
f 1s, and its a

36

NCE
yclic load to
OpenSees. Th
4 were free t
the x-directio
amplitude wa
(9
6
a
he
to
on
as
9)




Figures 7 th
Figure 6:
rough 9 show
F
Fig
: Input cyclic
w data from tr
Figure 7: Exc
gure 8: Shear
- 367 -
force applied

rial with this e
cess pore pres

stress versus


d to top of ele
element.
ssure ratio
s shear strain
ement



V

F
is equ
at tim
the pe
contro
confin
pressu
If
(Table
betwe

C

Vol. 15 [20
or each test, l
ual to 1. In Fi
me of 11s.Then
eak stress for
olled loading
nement stress
ure was zero.
f CRRs in Ta
e 4).Then the
een CRR and
CSR
N
Fig
10], Bund.
Figure 9: De
liquefaction i
gure 7, the ex
n the number
each cycle in
g. As the exc
s decreased.
This was the
able 2 were ch
e relationship
N, as shown
Table 4: N
0.17
5
ure 10: Comp
. D
eviatoric stres
is considered
xcess pore pre
of cycles req
n the hystereti
cess pore pr
Initial lique
e typical appe
hosen, an arra
between CSR
in Figure 10.
Number of cyc
0.11
10
parison betwe
ss versus effe

to have occu
essure ratio in
quired to prod
ic diagram re
ressures built
faction had
arance of soil
ay of number
R and N for s

cles to liquefa
0.085
13
een results fro

ective confinin
urred when the
ncreased with
duce liquefact
mained const
t and the cyc
occurred wh
l liquefaction
rs causing to
soils was com
action at diffe
5 0.
2
om two differ

ng stress
e excess pore
h time and fin
tion was 11. D
tant as a resul
clic load wa
hen the effec
.
liquefaction w
mpared with th
erent CSR
068
21
rent methods
36
e pressure rati
nally reached
During the tes
lt of the stress
as applied, th
ctive confinin
were produce
he relationshi
0.06
27

8
io
1
st,
s-
he
ng
ed
ip



that i
accele
consis

M
earthq
F
1. F
ve
2. F
pr

Free field an
s subjected t
eration of the
st of 20 eleme
Material used
quake motion
or the elemen
or the solid p
ertically to m
or the fluid p
ressures at the
F
nalysis refers
to a seismic
e input motion
ents (Figure 1
in the model
n was applied
nt, it was spec
phase, two la
mimic a 1D she
phase, the ba
e ground surf
FREE FI
s to analysis
excitation. A
n was 0.3g (F
12).
Figure
Figure 12
was PDMY m
at the bottom
cifying:
ateral sides o
ear beam effe
se and the tw
face.
- 369 -
IELD AN
of a soil pro
As the field is
Figure 11), an
11: Input mot
2: Idealized m

material and p
m of the mode
f the mesh w
ect (Parra,199
wo sides were

NALYSIS
file, unaffect
s in a strong
nd the model
tion
model
parameters w
l.
were tied toge
96), and the to
e impervious
S
ed by suppor
g earthquake
was simplifie


were decided b
ether both ho
op surface wa
, with zero p
rted structure
area, the pea
ed to a colum
by Table1. Th
orizontally an
as traction free
prescribed por
es,
ak
mn
he
nd
e;
re
V

T
surfac
liquef
D
and it
displa
(Figur

Vol. 15 [20
The excess po
ce to 19m in
fied during th
During the ear
t had the ma
acement was
re 15).
10], Bund.
ore pressure r
n depth, the
he earthquake.
Figure
rthquake, it is
aximum valu
large, the v
Figure 1
. D
atio was show
excess pore
.
13: Excess p
s clearly seen
ue of 0.3m at
value of settle
14: Maximum
wn as Figure
pressure rat
pore pressure r

n that the soil
t the ground
ement was r
m lateral sprea

e 13. It was s
io was 1, m
ratio along th
l column had
d surface (Fig
rather small,
ading along th
hown that fro
meaning that t

he depth
d large lateral
gure 14). Wh
with the val

he depth
37
om the groun
these soil ha
displacemen
hile the latera
lue of 0.035m
0
nd
ad
nt,
al
m


T
soil e
betwe
conve
D
was la
large.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
This paper intr
element with
een paramete
enient for prac
During the stro
arge lateral sp
All the soil s
. Andrus, R
wave veloc
Soils, Nat.
. Casagrand
review. P
also publis
Cambridge
. Castro, G.
Harvard U
. Ishihara K
Proceeding
Engineerin
. Iwan, W. D
composite
F
roduces a new
OpenSees a
rs of PDMY
ctical purpose
ong earthquak
preading with
should be dea
. D., and Stok
city. Proc., N
Ctr. for Earth
de, A. (1975)
Proc., 5th Pan
shed as Harva
e, Mass.
(1969) Liqu
Univ., Cambrid
K. (1985) Stab
gs of the 11th
ng, San Franc
D. (1967) O
systems. J.
Figure 15: Se
CON
w method to g
and with liqu
Y material an
e.
ke, soil liquef
h the maximu
alt with in ord
REF
koe, K. H., II
NCEER Wor
hquake Engrg
Liquefactio
n-American C
ard soil mecha
uefaction of s
dge, Mass.
bility of natur
h Internationa
cisco, CA, vol
On a class of m
Appl. Mech.
- 371 -
ettlement at d

NCLUSI
get parameters
uefaction theo
nd relative de
fied along the
um value of 0
der to avoid liq
FERENC
(1997) Liqu
rkshop on Eva
g. Res., State
on and cyclic d
Conf. on Soil M
anics series N
sands. Harv
ral deposits d
al Conference
l.2, 321-376
models for the
, 34, 612617

different depth
ION
s of PDMY m
ories, it is cl
ensity is goo
e ground surf
0.3m, while t
quefying.
CES
uefaction resi
aluation of Li
Univ. of New
deformation o
Mechanics an
No. 88, Januar
vard soil mech
during earthqu
on Soil Mech
e yielding beh
7.

h
material. After
learly that th
d for calcula
face to 19m in
the settlemen
istance based
iquefaction R
w York at Buf
of sandsA c
nd Foundation
ry, 1976, Har
hanics series N
uakes. Them
hanics and Fo
havior of cont
r analyzing th
he relationshi
ating, and als
n depth. Ther
nt was not ver
on shear
Resistance of
ffalo, 89128
critical
n Engineering
rvard Univ.,
No.81,
me Lecture.
oundation
tinuous and
he
ip
so
re
ry
8.
g,
Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. D 372

6. Kramer S. L. (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Upper Saddle River: Prentice
Hall.
7. Krinitzsky, E. L., and Hynes, M. E. (2002) The Bhuj, India, earthquake: lessons learned
for earthquake safety of dams on alluvium. Eng.Geol. (Amsterdam), 66(34), 163196.
8. Liao, S., and Whitman, R. V. (1986a) Overburden correction factors for SPT in sand.
J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 112(3), 373377
9. Mroz, Z. (1967) On the description of anisotropic work hardening. J. Mech. Phys.
Solids, 15, 163175.
10. Parra, E. (1996) Numerical modeling of liquefaction and lateral ground deformation
including cyclic mobility and dilation response in soil systems. PhD thesis, Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y.
11. Prevost, J. H. (1985) A simple plasticity theory for frictional cohesionless soils. Soil
Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 4(1), 917
12. Seed, H. B. (1968) Landslides during earthquakes due to soil liquefaction.
J.Geotech.Eng.Div. ASCE, 94(5), 46, 1055-1123.
13. Seed, H. B. (1979) Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for level ground
during earthquakes. J. Geotech. Eng., 105(2), 201255.
14. Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. (1982) Ground motions and soil liquefaction during
earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Monograph, Oakland, Calif.
15. Seed, H. B., and Lee, K. L. (1966) Liquefaction of saturated sands during cyclic
loading. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 92(6), 105134.
16. Tani, S. (1996) Damage to earth dams. Soils Found. , 36(1), 263272.
17. Yang, Z. (2000) Numerical modeling of earthquake site response including dilation and
liquefaction. PhD dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics,
Columbia University, New York.
18. Youd, T. L., and Noble, S. K. (1997a) Magnitude scaling factors. Proc., NCEER
Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Nat. Ctr. for Earthquake
Engrg. Res., State Univ. of New York at Buffalo, 149165.
2010 ejge