193

Numerical modeling of liquefaction and

comparison with centrifuge tests
Peter M. Byrne, Sung-Sik Park, Michael Beaty, Michael Sharp, Lenart Gonzalez,
and Tarek Abdoun

Abstract: The prediction of liquefaction and resulting displacements is a major concern for earth structures located in
regions of moderate to high seismicity. Conventional procedures used to assess liquefaction commonly predict the trig-
gering of liquefaction to depths of 50 m or more. Remediation to prevent or curtail liquefaction at these depths can be
very expensive. Field experience during past earthquakes indicates that liquefaction has mainly occurred at depths less
than about 15 m, and some recent dynamic centrifuge model testing initially appeared to confirm a depth or
confining-stress limitation on the occurrence of liquefaction. Such a limitation on liquefaction could greatly reduce
remediation costs. In this paper an effective stress numerical modeling procedure is used to assess these centrifuge
tests. The results indicate that a lack of complete saturation and densification at depth arising from the application of
the high-acceleration field are largely responsible for the apparent limitation on liquefaction at depth observed in some
centrifuge tests.
Key words: liquefaction, dynamic centrifuge modeling, numerical modeling, depth limitation.
Résumé : La prédiction de la liquéfaction et des déplacements qui en résultent est une préoccupation majeure pour les
structures en terre localisées dans des régions de séismicité moyenne à forte. Les procédures conventionnelles utilisées
pour évaluer la liquéfaction prédisent communément le déclenchement de la liquéfaction à des profondeurs de 50 m et
plus. Le confortement pour prévenir ou réduire la liquéfaction à ces profondeurs peut coûter très cher. L’expérience sur
le terrain durant les derniers séismes indique que la liquéfaction s’est produite principalement à des profondeurs infé-
rieures de moins de 15 m, et des essais dynamiques récents sur modèle en centrifuge ont semblé confirmer une limita-
tion de la profondeur ou de la contrainte de confinement pour la génération de la liquéfaction. Une telle limitation sur
la liquéfaction pourrait réduire considérablement les coûts de confortement. Dans cet article, on utilise une procédure
de modélisation numérique en contrainte effective pour évaluer les essais de centrifuge. Les résultats indiquent qu’un
manque de saturation complète de même qu’une densification à une profondeur résultant de l’application du champ des
fortes accélérations sont largement responsables de la limitation apparente sur la liquéfaction en profondeur observée
dans certains essais au centrifuge.
Mots clés : liquéfaction, modélisation dynamique centrifuge, modélisation numérique, limitation de la profondeur.

[Traduit par la Rédaction] Byrne et al. 211

Introduction dams where large displacements could lead to overtopping

The prediction of liquefaction and resulting displacements
is a major concern for earth structures located in regions of
moderate to high seismicity. This is particularly so for earth
Received 14 January 2003. Accepted 10 October 2003.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at
http://cgj.nrc.ca on 25 March 2004.
P.M. Byrne1 and S.-S. Park. Department of Civil
Engineering, University of British Columbia, 2324 Main
Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.
M. Beaty. California Department of Water Resources,
P.O. Box 942836, Sacramento, CA 94236, U.S.A.
M. Sharp. Centrifuge Research Center, Engineer Research
and Development Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Vicksburg, MS 39180, U.S.A.
L. Gonzalez and T. Abdoun. Department of Civil
Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy,
NY 12180, U.S.A.
1
Corresponding author (e-mail: pmb@civil.ubc.ca).
and sudden release of the reservoir, with life safety con-
cerns.
The standard procedure used to assess liquefaction com-
monly predicts the triggering of liquefaction to depths of
50 m or more. Remediation to prevent or curtail liquefaction
at these depths can be very expensive. Field experience dur-
ing past earthquakes (Youd et al. 2001) indicates that lique-
faction has mainly occurred at depths less than 15 m, and
some recent dynamic centrifuge model testing (Steedman et
al. 2000) suggests a depth or confining-stress limitation on
the occurrence of liquefaction. Such a limitation on excess
pore pressure development could greatly reduce remediation
costs, but confirmation requires reliable data and an im-
proved understanding of the liquefaction process through
analysis.
The seismic behaviour of soil structures to a design earth-
quake is generally assessed from a three-stage total stress
analysis involving (i) a dynamic analysis to compute the cy-
clic stress ratios (CSR) for comparison with the cyclic resis-
tance ratio (CRR) to identify zones that will liquefy; (ii) a

Can. Geotech. J. 41: 193–211 (2004) doi: 10.1139/T03-088 © 2004 NRC Canada
194
limit equilibrium analysis to assess post-liquefaction stabil-
ity using residual strengths in the liquefied zones; and, if no
flow slide is predicted, then (iii) a simple dynamic analysis
using the strength of the soil to assess permanent displace-
ments induced by shaking. The prediction of liquefaction at
depth in dynamic analysis occurs largely as a result of the
reduction in CRR with increasing confining stress, or the Kσ
effect, which is noted in laboratory element tests.
The aforementioned analyses represent the current state of
practice. Such analyses are not fundamental and are not
likely to improve our basic understanding of the liquefaction
process because they do not directly consider pore pressures
in the prediction of liquefaction. Pore pressures are indi-
rectly allowed for in the reduced strength and stiffness val-
ues used after liquefaction is triggered.
Effective stress analyses for assessing liquefaction have
been available for more than 25 years and are more funda-
mental. Triggering of liquefaction and post-liquefaction sta-
bility and resulting displacements can be considered in a
single time domain analysis. Such analyses are generally
based on capturing the element behaviour from laboratory
tests and then considering the soil structure to comprise a
collection of such elements with both generation and dissi-
pation of pore water pressure occurring as shaking proceeds.
In this way the weaker and (or) more heavily loaded ele-
ments are predicted to liquefy first, and the resulting dis-
placements increase with time in a phenomenon referred to
as lateral spreading. If sufficient elements liquefy and their
residual strength is insufficient for static stability, a flow
slide will result. Effective stress analyses have the capability
of predicting observed liquefaction response.
The validation of effective stress modeling is very impor-
tant, but it is difficult to achieve from field case histories
because the soil conditions and input motion are seldom
known with sufficient accuracy. The best documented case
histories are those of the Upper and Lower San Fernando
dams and their responses to the 1971 San Fernando earth-
quake, but even for these cases there is considerable uncer-
tainty about conditions and loading.
Model tests can be conducted in the laboratory under con-
trolled conditions and their response observed. Because soil
behaviour is highly stress dependent, however, small models
under a 1g acceleration field are not representative of field
conditions. On the other hand, centrifuge tests that utilize a
high acceleration field preserve the stress–strain response of
the prototype soil and can give a more realistic representa-
tion of field behaviour. Such models, when subjected to a
controlled base motion, can provide a database for the vali-
dation of numerical approaches.
Although centrifuge testing provides a seemingly ideal
tool for validating numerical models, its application is not
always straightforward. A major validation initiative (Arula-
nandan and Scott 1993) using centrifuge tests was carried
out in the 1990s and was termed a mitigated disaster by Pro-
fessor R. Scott in his oral presentation. Some of the reasons
for this assessment were due to aspects of the centrifuge
tests, including the boundary conditions in the centrifuge
box, the use of water as a pore fluid and the resulting high
rate of drainage, and the lack of verification of saturation.
The validation process also showed the necessity of models
to rationally consider the generation and dissipation of ex-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 41, 2004
cess pore pressure during shaking. At that time, a very lim-
ited number of numerical models were successful in accom-
plishing this task.
In this paper a numerical procedure is used in which both
generation and dissipation of pore fluid pressure are consid-
ered. The procedure is applied to predict the results of cen-
trifuge tests that investigate liquefaction at large depths. The
characteristic liquefaction behaviour of Nevada sand used in
the models was obtained from undrained cyclic simple shear
tests and is the basis for the numerical predictions of the
centrifuge tests. Several factors had to be considered to ac-
curately predict the centrifuge results, including the change
in density caused by the confining stresses induced in the
centrifuge and the effects of degree of saturation.
A comparison of predicted and measured centrifuge
model response is presented in this paper. Prior to the pre-
diction, a brief description of the numerical model is pre-
sented. In addition, the effects of saturation and stress
densification on liquefaction response are discussed.
Effective stress numerical modeling of
liquefaction
Cyclic shear strains induce plastic volume compaction in
granular soils. Martin et al. (1975) presented quantitative
data in their landmark paper and showed that the amount
of compaction per cycle is proportional to the cyclic shear
strain amplitude and accumulated volume compaction and is
independent of normal effective stress. They also showed
that the pore pressure generated per cycle is dependent on
the plastic volumetric strain, the rebound modulus of the
soil, and the stiffness of the pore fluid. They integrated these
concepts in a loose-coupled effective stress analysis and suc-
cessfully predicted liquefaction response.
Fully coupled effective stress approaches that consider
shear-induced pore pressures at each time step rather than at
each cycle or half cycle have been developed by many
researchers, including Dafalias (1986), Prevost (1989), Zien-
kiewicz et al. (1990), Byrne et al. (1995), Beaty and Byrne
(1998), Elgamal et al. (1999), and Kramer and Arduino
(1999). The numerical procedure used in this paper is a fully
coupled approach called UBCSAND (Puebla et al. 1997;
Beaty and Byrne 1998). It is based on plasticity theory and
the characteristic sand behaviour observed in laboratory tests
under monotonic and cyclic loading conditions. It is pre-
sented briefly in the following sections.
Elastic response
The elastic component of response is assumed to be iso-
tropic and specified by a shear modulus, G e , and a bulk
modulus, Be , as follows:
ne
 σ′ 
[1] G e = KGe Pa  
 Pa 
Be = αG e
where KGe is a shear modulus number, which depends on the
density of the sand and varies from about 500 for loose sand
to 2000 for dense sand; Pa is atmospheric pressure in the
chosen units; σ′ is the mean stress in the plane of loading,
© 2004 NRC Canada
Byrne et al. 195

where σ′ = (σx′ + σy′)/2; ne is an elastic exponent that varies Fig. 1. Yield locus.
between 0.4 and 0.6, or approximately 0.5; and α depends
on the elastic Poisson’s ratio, which is in the range 0.0–0.2
(Hardin 1978), with the result that α varies between 2/3 and
4/3 or is approximately unity.

Plastic response
Plastic strains are controlled by the yield loci, which are
assumed to be radial lines starting at the origin of stress
space as shown in Fig. 1. For first-time shear loading, the
yield locus is controlled by the current stress state, point A
in Fig. 1. As the shear stress increases, the stress ratio
η (= τ/σ′) increases and causes the stress point to move to
point B, where τ and σ′ are the shear and normal effective
stresses, respectively, on the plane of maximum shear
stress. The yield locus is dragged to the new location pass-
ing through point B and the origin. This results in plastic
strains, both shear and volumetric. The plastic shear strain Fig. 2. Plastic strain increment and plastic modulus.
increment, dγ p, is related to the change in shear stress ratio,
dη, as shown in Fig. 2 and can be expressed as
1
[2] dγ p = dη
G p/ σ′
where G p is the plastic shear modulus and, assuming a hy-
perbolic relationship between η and γ p, is given by
2
 η 
[3] G p
= Gip 1 − Rf 
 ηf 
p
where Gi is the plastic modulus at a low stress ratio level
(η = 0); ηf is the stress ratio at failure and equals sin φf ,
where φf is the peak friction angle; and Rf is the failure ratio
used to truncate the best fit hyperbolic relationship and pre-
vent the overprediction of strength at failure. Rf generally
varies between 0.70 and 0.98 and decreases with increasing Fig. 3. Directions of plastic strains (flow rule).
relative density. It has been useful to relate Gip to G e and rel-
ative density Dr through the approximate relationship Gip ≈
3.7(Dr)4G e + Pa .
The associated increment of plastic volumetric strain, dεpv,
is related to the increment of plastic shear strain, dγ p,
through the flow rule as follows:
 τ
[4] dεpv =  sin φcv −  dγ p
 σ′

where φcv is the constant-volume friction angle or phase-

transformation angle. This flow rule can be derived from en-
ergy considerations and is similar to stress dilation theory
(Rowe 1962; Matsuoka and Nakai 1977).
The yield loci and direction of the plastic strains resulting
from the flow rule are shown in Fig. 3. Figure 3 shows that
at low stress ratios, significant shear-induced plastic com-
paction is occurring, whereas no compaction is predicted at
stress ratios corresponding to φcv. For stress ratios greater
than φcv, shear-induced plastic expansion or dilation is pre-
dicted. This simple flow rule is in close agreement with the
characteristic behaviour of sand observed in laboratory ele-
ment testing. Upon unloading (reducing stress ratio), the
sand is assumed to behave elastically. Upon reloading, the
sand is assumed to behave plastically but with a plastic
modulus that is several times stiffer than that for first-time
loading until the prior maximum value is reached, at which
point it reverts to first-time loading.
The sign of the stress ratio is controlled by the sign of the
shear stress on the horizontal plane, and positive and nega-
tive values are tracked separately. This means that the plastic
hardening includes kinematic rather than simple isotropic
behaviour. The characteristic drained behaviour of sand un-
der cyclic loading observed by Martin et al. (1975), and
additional data reported by Byrne (1991) in which plastic

© 2004 NRC Canada

196 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 41, 2004

volumetric strains accumulate with cycles of load but at a Fig. 4. Element under simple shear loading.
decreasing rate, is well captured by the model.
The response of sand is controlled by the skeleton behav-
iour. A fluid (air–water mix) in the pores of the sand acts as
a volumetric constraint on the skeleton if drainage is cur-
tailed. It is this constraint that causes the pore pressure rise
that can lead to liquefaction. Provided the skeleton or
drained behaviour is appropriately modeled under monotonic
and cyclic loading conditions and the stiffness of the pore
fluid and drainage are accounted for, the liquefaction re-
sponse can be predicted. This is the approach taken here,
and the concepts discussed previously are incorporated in
UBCSAND.
This model was used with the computer code FLAC (fast
Lagrangian analysis of continua), version 4.0 (Itasca Con-
sulting Group Inc. 2000). This program models the soil mass Fig. 5. Undrained cyclic simple shear response for small strain.
as a collection of grid zones or elements and solves the cou-
pled stress flow problem using an explicit time stepping ap-
proach. The program has a number of built-in stress–strain
models, including an elastic–plastic Mohr–Coulomb model,
and UBCSAND is a variation of this model in which friction
and dilation angles are varied to incorporate the yield loci
and flow rule described earlier. Pore fluid stiffness and
Darcy hydraulic flow are basic to the FLAC program, so
only the skeleton stress–strain relation is needed to simulate
liquefaction. Drained, undrained, or coupled stress flow con-
ditions are specified by the user.
The key elastic and plastic parameters can be expressed in
terms of relative density, Dr, or normalized standard penetra-
tion test values, (N1)60. Initial estimates of these parameters
have been approximated from published data and model cal-
ibrations. The response of sand elements under monotonic
and cyclic loading can then be predicted and the results
compared with laboratory data. In this way, the model can
be made to match the observed response over the range of
relative density or (N1)60 values.

Model simulation of saturated undrained

simple shear
A soil element under simple shear undrained loading con-
ditions is shown in Fig. 4. The predicted response to a cyclic
shear stress of 11 kPa is shown in Fig. 5 for an initial stress
state with σvo′ = 100 kPa, K = 0.5, and density corresponding
to (N1)60 = 8. σvo ′ is the initial vertical effective stress and
K0 ⋅σvo
′ is the initial horizontal effective stress. For strains
less than 0.05%, Fig. 5a shows the predicted stress strain re-
sponse and Fig. 5b shows the rising pore pressure as the
number of cycles and amplitude of strain increase. The pre-
dicted response at large strain is shown in Fig. 6. Figure 6
shows that once the excess pore pressure reaches about 85%
of the initial effective stress, successive dilation and contrac-
tion pulses occur and the stress–strain loops (Fig. 6a) are
much softer and have a different characteristic shape as com-
pared to the pre-liquefaction response.
The predicted effective stress path is shown in Fig. 7. Af- path passes through the origin (zero effective stress). This
ter about five cycles, flow liquefaction occurs with an asso- leads to a very low shear modulus that increases with an
ciated large decrease in effective stress, bringing the stress increase in shear strain as the sample dilates. It is this alter-
state to the phase-transformation line (path A). At this point nating contraction–dilation response of sand that causes the
the element dilates and recovers resistance as shown by path characteristic post-liquefaction behaviour observed in labo-
B in Figs. 6 and 7. Upon subsequent unloading, the stress ratory test elements and predicted by the model.

© 2004 NRC Canada

Byrne et al.
Fig. 6. Undrained cyclic simple shear response for large strain.
Fig. 7. Effective stress path.
The model has also been calibrated to predict liquefaction
triggering response in terms of normalized standard penetra-
tion resistance (N1)60 in agreement with the National Center
for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) chart (Youd
and Idriss 1997). The predicted CSR to cause liquefaction in
197
Fig. 8. Comparison of predicted (UBCSAND) and field-observed
(NCEER Chart) liquefaction resistance.
Fig. 9. Stress densification of Nevada sand, one-dimensional data
from Arulmoli et al. (1992) and eq. 5.
15 cycles versus (N1)60 is shown in Fig. 8 along with the
NCEER chart relationship based on field experience. The
model is shown to be in close agreement with the field data.
Centrifuge tests overview
Centrifuge model tests to evaluate liquefaction response at
high confining stress have been carried out at the Engineer
Research and Development Center (ERDC), U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi. The models
comprised a dense sand layer with Dr ≈ 80% overlying a
loose sand layer with Dr ≈ 50%. High confining stresses
were achieved by application of a surface layer of lead.
Nevada sand was used for the tests. Preliminary centrifuge
results were presented by Steedman et al. (2000) and indi-
cated that there is a cutoff confining pressure above which
liquefaction will not occur. The data suggest this pressure is
© 2004 NRC Canada
198
about 300 kPa, and Steedman et al. contend that field evi-
dence supports this finding. If this is the case, then huge
savings in retrofit costs for many existing dams and bridges
are possible, since present analyses procedures indicate that
treatment to curtail or prevent liquefaction is often necessary
to depths where pressures are well in excess of 300 kPa.
To verify such a cutoff, additional centrifuge tests were
carried out at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) (Gonza-
lez et al. 2002). These tests indicated no cutoff confining
stress for stresses up to 380 kPa but did show trends in the
development of pore pressure and liquefaction which were
not consistent with state of practice or with state-of-the-art
liquefaction analysis.
There are a number of possible reasons for the differences
between the two sets of centrifuge data and current analysis
procedures, including (i) characteristics of the centrifuge
model containment box, (ii) saturation of the model and pore
fluid stiffness, and (iii) stress densification effects. These
possibilities are briefly discussed in the following sections,
followed by a more detailed discussion of stress densifi-
cation and pore fluid stiffness.
Characteristics of the containment box
In both ERDC and RPI tests a laminar box comprised of
rings allowing lateral shear movements (lateral strain in the
long direction of the box, parallel to shaking) was used. The
ERDC box had a stiff sealant between rings, whereas in the
RPI box the rings were separated by linear roller bearings
(free to slide laterally). Therefore, upon liquefaction, the
ERDC box could offer significant lateral resistance that
could influence the dynamic response of the model and the
measured accelerations.
Model saturation
The RPI models were saturated using a process that in-
volved replacement of air with carbon dioxide gas and then
displacement and dissolving of the gas by the introduction
of high-viscosity water under vacuum. In the ERDC tests,
the viscous fluid was introduced at the base of the sample
without prior removal of air by carbon dioxide or application
of vacuum. In neither case was the degree of saturation or
stiffness of the pore fluid evaluated by measurement of the
compression wave or other means.
Stress densification
The density of the sand in the model will change with
stress. The authors believe that at high confining stress such
changes could be quite significant and impact the numerical
modeling of the soil response. The stress densification of
sands is discussed in more detail later in this paper.
Purpose of numerical analyses
The purpose of the effective stress analysis carried out
here is to obtain a measure of understanding of the impor-
tance of various aspects of the testing, including the charac-
teristics of the box, the degree of saturation of the pore fluid,
and stress densification effects. Prior to examining the cen-
trifuge data and the results of the analyses, the effect of
stress densification and pore fluid stiffness are addressed.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 41, 2004
Stress densification
The sand in the centrifuge model is first placed in the test
box under a 1g acceleration field at a specific void ratio or
density. At this stage the stresses in the model are very low
and the densities are as placed. Upon spin-up to 100g, the
stresses increase 100-fold, with high stresses at the base and
low stresses at the surface. These stresses induce compaction
in the model, causing a significant increase in density at the
base and little change at the surface. This density change can
curtail liquefaction in the high-stress region near the base of
the model and can be responsible for unexpected liquefac-
tion response if it is not taken into account. For example,
consider a uniform sand layer with the water table at the sur-
face subjected to base motion causing little or no amplifica-
tion. Current analysis procedures would predict liquefaction
to occur first at the base and perhaps base isolate the upper
layers. Yet, under these conditions in the centrifuge when
the initial sand density is uniform, liquefaction always oc-
curs at the surface first. This unexpected result is likely
caused by stress densification.
The amount of stress densification depends on the
compressibility of the soil and can be estimated from one-
dimensional compression tests. The results of such compres-
sion tests on Nevada sand are shown in Fig. 9. The increase
in relative density, Dr, is approximately proportional to the
square root of vertical effective stress. It also depends on the
placement density, with higher placement densities having
less subsequent stress densification.
Examination of compression data on a number of sands
(Park and Byrne 2004) indicates that all sands examined
seem to behave in a similar manner and that the stress densi-
fication effect can be expressed by
 σ′ 
[5] Dr = Dr 0 + α  v 

 Pa 
where Dr 0 is the initial relative density at 0 kPa; σv′ is the
vertical effective stress; and
 (1 + emax)  2 (1.5 − Dr 0)
α= − Dr 0 
 emax − emin  C
in which emax and emin are the maximum and minimum void
ratio, respectively; and C is a sand stiffness number that is
independent of void ratio.
The range in sand stiffness number C for a few sands is
shown in Table 1. The results indicate that Nevada sand has
a stiffness number in the middle range of the data for other
sands and thus is moderately sensitive to stress densification
effects. It may be of interest to note that Marcuson and
Bieganousky (1977) did consider stress densification effects
in their large-scale chamber tests when evaluating stress and
density effects on penetration resistance.
Effect of pore fluid stiffness on generated
pore pressures
The pore pressures of concern for liquefaction are those
generated by plastic volumetric strain. Pore pressures may
also be generated by transient changes in total stress, but
© 2004 NRC Canada
Byrne et al. 199

Table 1. Material properties and sand stiffness number C.

D50
Sand Gs (mm) Cu emax emin C
Brasted sand (BS) 2.68 0.25 2.42 0.790 0.480 500
Ottawa sand (OS) 2.67 0.40 1.54 0.820 0.500 370
Toyoura sand (TS) 2.65 0.19 1.24 0.963 0.605 300
Nevada sand (NS) 2.67 0.17 2.00 0.887 0.511 220
Fraser River sand (FRS) 2.72 0.30 1.56 1.000 0.680 270
Volcanic sand (VS) 2.44 0.17 2.38 1.810 0.970 105
Mine tailing sand (MTS) 2.68 0.40 1.67 1.060 0.690 150
Quiou sand (QS) 2.71 0.70 4.50 1.200 0.780 100
Note: Cu is the coefficient of uniformity; D50 is the mean grain size; Gs is the specific gravity.

Fig. 10. Variation of fluid stiffness with initial saturation for var- Fig. 12. Cyclic resistance of Nevada sand (Arulmoli et al. 1992;
ious current absolute (abs) pressures (p). Kammerer et al. 2000). Ncyc, number of cycles to liquefaction.

these lead to small changes in effective stress unless the soil

is partially saturated. An applied load increment will induce
a total volumetric strain increment, dεv, that is the sum of
the elastic and plastic increments, dεev and dεpv, respectively.
Fig. 11. Hydraulic conductivity of Nevada sand (Arulmoli et al. For undrained conditions the resulting change in pore pres-
1992). sure, du, is
Bf
[6] du = dεv
n

where Bf is the bulk stiffness of the pore fluid, and n is the

porosity. The corresponding change in effective mean stress,
dσ′, to an increment of volumetric strain is
[7] dσ′ = B e dεev
The increment of total mean stress, dσ, is equal to the in-
crements of effective mean stress and pore pressure. If, for
simplicity, we assume dσ = 0, then du = −dσ′. Substituting
from eqs. [6] and [7] gives
Be
[8] du = dεpv = BSkempton B e dεpv
Be
1+
Bf / n

where BSkempton is the Skempton value commonly used to as-

sess the saturation of samples in the laboratory. It is clear

© 2004 NRC Canada

200
that the ratio of the skeleton stiffness to pore fluid stiffness,
B e /Bf , is a major factor in pore pressure response.
From Boyle’s law, and assuming the same pressure in
both water and air, Bf is found to be a function of p, the cur-
rent absolute pressure of the fluid, and Sr0, the saturation at
zero gauge pressure (p = 100 kPa), as given by
p2
[9] Bf ≅ < 2 × 106 kPa
(1 − Sr 0)Pa
Sr0 approximates the initial saturation in a centrifuge
model prior to spin-up. If the pores are completely filled
with water, then Bf = 2 × 106 kPa, the bulk stiffness of water.
If Be = 6 × 104 kPa and n = 1/3, then BSkempton = 0.99 and
du = 0.99Be dεpv. But if the degree of saturation were reduced
to Sr0 = 0.98, then Bf drops to 5000 kPa at p = 100 kPa, with
BSkempton = 0.2 and du = 0.2Be dεpv.
Poor saturation at low pore pressure will lead to a reduced
pore pressure response to load. This is particularly so if the
skeleton stiffness is high. This may occur in a centrifuge
model near the water table when it is at depth or when a sur-
face load is applied. For a water table at the surface and no
surface load, BSkempton may still be high, as the skeleton stiff-
ness will be low.
If the water pressure p in the soil increases, as it would
during spin-up, then water will flow into the voids, compress
the air, and increase Bf. This increase in fluid stiffness with
an increase in pressure is included in eq. [9] and the subse-
quent numerical simulations. The fluid stiffness, Bf, for a
range of initial saturation and pressure conditions is shown
in Fig. 10. The initial degrees of saturation in excess of
99.9% are required to obtain Bf > 5 × 105 kPa for pore pres-
sures less than 100 kPa gauge. Such values of Bf will gener-
ally produce a liquefaction response similar to that of a fully
saturated condition. Initial saturation is seen to be very im-
portant and can have a very large effect on pore pressure rise
and liquefaction response, which varies with depth in the
model.
Properties of Nevada sand
The hydraulic conductivity and liquefaction resistance of
Nevada sand used in the centrifuge tests and the modeling
are as follows.
The hydraulic conductivity, k, used in the analyses is
based on constant-head permeability tests carried out for the
VELACS program (Arulmoli et al. 1992). The results are
shown in Fig. 11, where k varies between 6.6 × 10–5 m/s at
low relative density to 2.3 × 10–5 m/s at high relative density.
The values shown are for water as a pore fluid under a 1g
field. For centrifuge tests in an acceleration field N times
greater than gravity, the effective k will be N times greater. If
the viscosity of the fluid is M times greater than water, as it
may be for the centrifuge tests, then k would reduce by a
factor M. Thus,
N direction and to experience shearing deformations due to
[10] k* = k
M
where k* is the effective hydraulic conductivity in the centri-
fuge, and k is the hydraulic conductivity of the soil in a 1g
environment using water as a pore fluid.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 41, 2004
The liquefaction response of Nevada sand was based on
cyclic simple shear tests carried out for the VELACS project
(Arulmoli et al. 1992) and tests carried out at the University
of California at Berkeley (Kammerer et al. 2000). The re-
sults of these tests are shown in Fig. 12 in terms of CSR ver-
sus number of cycles to liquefaction for a range of relative
densities. The predicted liquefaction response of the sand
from the numerical model for a fully saturated state is shown
by the lines in Fig. 12, which capture the data quite well.
For both the laboratory tests and the numerical model, lique-
faction was assumed to occur when the cyclic strain ampli-
tude reached 3.75%.
RPI test results and analysis
Three centrifuge model tests conducted at the RPI centri-
fuge facility were examined in detail. The models used Ne-
vada sand and simulate level ground conditions subjected to
a harmonic base input motion. The frequency of the input
motion was selected to reduce the potential for amplification
in the model. The conditions for the three models are listed
in Table 2 and are described in the following sections.
Centrifuge model 1
Model 1 is comprised of a uniform sand layer with a
placed relative density of Dr = 55%. It was subjected to an
acceleration field of 120g, and the fluid viscosity was 60
times that of water. The fluid table is at the surface of the
model. No surcharge was applied at the surface, and the
maximum initial effective stress at the base was 380 kPa.
Centrifuge model 2
Model 2 is comprised of a uniform sand layer with a
placed relative density of Dr = 55% but with a surcharge
load that resulted in a pressure of 140 kPa at the applied 80g
acceleration field. The surcharge load simulates a sand col-
umn above the fluid table. This condition also gave an effec-
tive stress at the base of 380 kPa.
Centrifuge model 3
Model 3 is comprised of a dense layer (Dr = 75%) overly-
ing a looser layer (Dr = 55%). It was subjected to an acceler-
ation field of 80g and had a surface load of 140 kPa. This
condition also gave an effective stress at the base of
380 kPa.
Numerical models
The centrifuge models were analyzed with a single
column of elements. This one-dimensional representation is
equivalent to assuming the stresses and strains in the centri-
fuge model are uniform across any horizontal plane. Bound-
ary constraints were placed on the model so that the top of
each soil element remained horizontal during loading and
the width of the model remained virtually constant. This al-
lowed each element to compress or expand in a vertical
horizontal shear stresses. Secondary response modes, such
as rocking, were not represented.
The only other effect of the containment box considered
in the analysis was its tendency to limit vertical deforma-
tions of the sand through frictional resistance. This effect
© 2004 NRC Canada
Byrne et al. 201

Table 2. Centrifuge model tests.

RPI
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 ERDC, model 5a
Centrifuge acceleration (g) 120 80 80 50
Fluid viscosity, µ w 60 40 40 50
Prototype soil depth (m) 38.0 24.0 24.0 26.3
Surcharge load (kPa) 0 140 140 580
Max σv′ (kPa) 380 380 380 836
Relative density, Dr (%) 55 55 75 (top 16 m); 72 (top 18 m);
55 (bottom 8 m) 51 (bottom 8 m)

Table 3. Key input of model 1 in numerical analysis.

Relative density, Dr (%)
Initial Bf after
saturation, spin-up Permeability,
Layer Sr0 (%) (kPa) k (m/s) Placed Spin-up
Top 98.5 0.2×105 8.2×10–5 55 55
Middle 98.5 0.6×105 8.2×10–5 55 61
Bottom 98.5 1.2×105 8.2×10–5 55 63

Table 4. Key input of model 2 in numerical analysis.

Relative density, Dr (%)
Initial Bf after
saturation, spin-up Permeability,
Layer Sr0 (%) (kPa) k (m/s) Placed Spin-up
Top 99.0 1.3×104 5.5×10–5 55 60
Middle 98.5 2.4×104 5.5×10–5 55 62
Bottom 98.0 3.2×104 5.5×10–5 55 63

Table 5. Key input of model 3 in numerical analysis.

Relative density, Dr (%)
Initial Bf after
saturation, spin-up Permeability,
Layer Sr0 (%) (kPa) k (m/s) Placed Spin-up
4 –5
Top 99.0 2.5×10 3.1×10 75 79
Middle 98.5 4.0×104 3.1×10–5 75 81
Bottom 98.0 3.5×104 5.5×10–5 55 63

was only evaluated in ERDC test model 5a discussed after
the RPI tests. The interface shear stresses on the boundary
change the total stresses experienced by the sand. This ef-
fect, known as the silo effect, is a concern in centrifuge
modeling due to the large increase in total stresses that oc-
curs after placement of the sand in the box. This effect was
approximately modeled by including interface elements on
each side of the sand column and assigning an interface fric-
tion angle of 25°. Spin-up of the centrifuge was modeled by
gradually increasing the gravitational force. The resulting
stresses and strains in the sand elements were a function of
both the induced gravitational load and the resisting inter-
face stresses. These interface stresses, and their effect on to-
tal stress, can also change during model shaking because of
changes in horizontal stress and pore pressures.
Initial saturation was not measured in any of the three
models. An assumption of 100% saturation led to predic-
tions of excess pore pressure rise that were significantly
faster than those observed. Assumed saturation values of
about 98.5% before spin-up were found to give the best
agreement with the measurements for the three RPI models.
The precise values used are listed in Tables 3–5.
Results for RPI model 1
A cross section of model 1, showing the locations of the
pore pressure transducers and accelerations, and the FLAC

© 2004 NRC Canada

202 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 41, 2004

Fig. 13. (a) Centrifuge model 1 setup and instrument locations. (b) FLAC model 1 measurement locations.

Fig. 14. Base input motions of model 1.

simulation model are shown in Fig. 13. The input motion Fig. 15. Placed density and increased density of model 1.
comprised 50 cycles of 0.2g at 1.5 Hz prototype scale. The
actual input motion amplitude varied somewhat with time,
as shown in Fig. 14, and this was accounted for in the FLAC
simulation. The effect of stress densification on relative den-
sity Dr was estimated from eq. [5] and is shown in Fig. 15.
This relationship indicates that Dr has increased from 55%
to about 63% near the base of the layer.
The measured and predicted acceleration and excess pore
water pressure time histories at prototype depths of 1.3, 6.3,
13.1, 24.8, 30.8, and 37.0 m are shown in Figs. 16a and 16b.
Apart from the 30.8 m depth, the patterns of predicted accel-
erations in Fig. 16b are in good agreement with the measure-
ments. It is apparent from the large reduction in acceleration
amplitude with time that liquefaction has occurred first at or
near the surface and worked its way downward. Figure 16b
shows that the predicted excess pore pressures are in good
agreement with the measured values. At a depth of 13.1 m
the excess pore water pressure has reached the initial vertical
effective stress corresponding to 100% pore pressure rise at
a time of 6 s, indicating liquefaction. This time is in good
agreement with the change in acceleration pattern.
The time to reach 100% pore pressure rise increases with
depth, indicating that liquefaction occurs first near the sur- are about the same at all depths, perhaps somewhat higher at
face and works its way downward. This is a somewhat sur- depth. This leads to a constant applied stress ratio, and, if Dr
prising result, as the accelerations in the initial time phase were constant, standard practice would suggest that liquefac-

© 2004 NRC Canada

Byrne et al.
Fig. 16. (a) Comparison between measured and predicted accelerations of model 1. (b) Comparison between measured and predicted
excess pore pressures of model 1.
tion should be triggered at the base first due to the Kσ effect.
When the numerical simulation was carried out assuming
constant Dr with depth, the liquefaction did occur first at the
base and then worked its way upward. Only when increased
density at depth in accordance with stress densification was
considered did the analysis predict the observed pore pres-
sure pattern.
The rate of excess pore pressure buildup was sometimes
observed to change with time. An example is shown in
Fig. 16b for a time of 4 s and a depth of 30.8 m. The rate of
pore pressure buildup is a function of the applied cyclic
stress at the depth in question. This stress, in turn, is the
summation of the mass times the acceleration of all overly-
ing masses. Hence, as the acceleration patterns change in the
overlying soil due to pore pressure changes, the rate of pore
pressure rise at the depth in question will also change. Dif-
fering patterns of excess pore pressure rise with depth and
time are to be expected and are seen in both the measure-
ments and predictions.
Figure 16b also shows that the measured cyclic pore pres-
sure spikes after liquefaction are significantly larger than
predicted. These spikes result from dilation, and the lower
predicted values may be a result of assuming a rate of dila-
tion at failure that was independent of effective stress level.
Dilation is higher at the very low effective stresses that oc-
cur at liquefaction, and this effect was not modeled.
Results for RPI model 2
A cross section of model 2, showing the locations of the
pore pressure transducers and accelerometers, and the FLAC
simulation model are shown in Fig. 17. In this model, the
203
placement Dr = 55% and a surface load is applied. The ap-
plied base motion is shown in Fig. 18. The estimated effect
of stress densification on relative density is shown in Fig. 19
and indicates that Dr has increased from 55% to 60% near
the surface and 63% near the bottom layer.
The predicted and measured acceleration and excess pore
water pressure at prototype depths ranging from 0.7 to
22.3 m are shown in Figs. 20a and 20b, respectively. The
predicted and measured acceleration responses are in reason-
able agreement, although the predicted accelerations in the
upper 7 m decrease more quickly than the measured values.
The measured excess pore water pressures indicate that
liquefaction again occurs first at or near the surface and
works its way downward. In contrast, the predictions show
liquefaction occurring first at some depth between 3.9 and
13.0 m, with no subsequent liquefaction near the surface.
The predicted pore water pressures below this depth are in
reasonable agreement with the measurements but show a
faster initial rise.
Predicted pore pressures at depth 7.4 m are shown in
Fig. 20b, but no measured pore pressures are available for
comparison. Liquefaction is predicted to occur first at a time
of 4 s at this depth. This has the effect of decoupling the pre-
dicted accelerations above this depth, as shown in Fig. 20a.
Once liquefaction occurs at any depth in this one-
dimensional model, it causes a base isolation effect that re-
sults in decoupling the accelerations at all depths above the
zone of liquefaction. The predicted excess pore pressures
above the depth of liquefaction may be quite low, yet the
accelerations at these depths still show a large reduction in
response due to base isolation from the lower liquefied layer.
© 2004 NRC Canada
204 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 41, 2004

Fig. 17. (a) Centrifuge model 2 setup and instrument locations. (b) FLAC model 2 measurement locations.

Fig. 18. Base input motions of model 2.

This is the case at 3.9 m depth, as shown in Fig. 20. Here Fig. 19. Placed density and increased density of model 2.
liquefaction is predicted to occur at depth 7.4 m, causing de-
coupling at 7.4 and 3.9 m depths, even though liquefaction
is not predicted at the 3.9 m depth.
The effect of the surface load in model 2 is to increase the
applied cyclic stress ratio (CSR) with depth, making lique-
faction more likely to occur first at depth rather than at the
surface. The CSR for model 2 can be approximated by
a max σv0 a max 140 + (γh)
[11] CSR = =
g σv′ 0 g 140 + (γ − γ w) h
where amax is the cyclic acceleration amplitude, g is the
applied acceleration field, 140 is the applied surface load
in kPa, h is the depth below the ground surface, γ is the unit
weight of soil, and γw is the unit weight of water. Assuming
amax is constant with depth prior to liquefaction, which was
the intent of the experiments, CSR will increase with depth,
varying from amax/g at the soil surface to about 1.6amax/g at
a depth of 20 m. Triggering of liquefaction also depends on
relative density, which will increase with depth due to stress
densification. Hence, the location of first liquefaction de-
pends on the importance of the CSR variation compared
to the relative density variation. The decoupling of both 7 and 4 s, respectively. The measured excess pore pressure
measured and predicted acceleration and the measured and also shows liquefaction occurring at depth 3.9 m, whereas
predicted excess pore pressures (Fig. 20) suggest that lique- the predicted pore pressures are significantly lower at this
faction is first occurring at a depth of about 7 m at times of depth. It is possible that the higher measured pore pressures

© 2004 NRC Canada

Byrne et al. 205

Fig. 20. (a) Comparison between measured and predicted accelerations of model 2. (b) Comparison between measured and predicted
excess pore pressures of model 2.

Fig. 21. (a) Centrifuge model 3 setup and instrument locations. (b) FLAC model 3 measurement locations.

near the surface may result from impeded drainage resulting
from the presence of the lead surface load.
Significant cyclic pore pressures are predicted prior to liq-
uefaction in Fig. 20b for model 2. This is somewhat surpris-
ing, as dilation effects would not be significant prior to
liquefaction. Such pore pressure spikes were far less signifi-
cant in Fig. 16b for model 1 where no surface load was ap-
plied. The cyclic pore pressures observed in model 2 are
likely due to changes in total mean stress arising from rock-
ing rather than being induced by shear. This is indicated
from a comparison of measured pore pressure responses at
transducers P5 and P6 located at depth 3.9 m, but left and
right of centreline as shown in Fig. 17. The comparison
showed pore pressure spikes that were 180° out of phase,
i.e., the P5 positive spike occurred at the same time as the
P6 negative spike. In the FLAC analysis the left and right
boundaries were forced to have the same horizontal and ver-
tical displacements. This precluded any rocking effects and

© 2004 NRC Canada

206 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 41, 2004

Fig. 22. Base input motions of model 3.

likely accounts for the difference in measured and predicted Fig. 23. Placed density and increased density of model 3.
pore pressure response.

Results for RPI model 3

A cross section of model 3, showing the locations of the
pore pressure transducers and accelerometers, and the FLAC
simulation model are shown in Fig. 21. In this model the
lower portion was placed at Dr = 55% and the upper at Dr =
75% and a surface load was applied. The applied base mo-
tion is shown in Fig. 22. The effect of stress densification on
relative density Dr is shown in Fig. 23 and indicates that Dr
has increased from 75% to 81% in the dense layer and from
55% to 63% in the bottom loose layer.
The predicted and measured accelerations and excess pore
water pressures at prototype depths ranging from 0.6 to
22.8 m are shown in Figs. 24a and 24b, respectively. Apart
from at the depth of 13.4 m, the predicted and measured ac-
celeration responses are in general agreement. The predicted
initial accelerations are significantly higher than the mea-
sured values in the first few seconds at the shallower depths,
however.
The predicted and measured excess pore pressures are during the time period 0–20 s. The abrupt reduction in rate
also in reasonably good agreement except for at the depth of of pore pressure generation at depth 19.3 m (Fig. 24b) after
19.3 m, where the predicted responses are too rapid com- about 3 s indicates an abrupt reduction in CSR occurred at
pared with the measured values. Although the denser upper this time. This could have been brought about by liquefac-
layers generate significant pore water pressure, they do not tion occurring near the top of the loose layer at a time of
liquefy. about 3 s, in agreement with expected and predicted re-
The predicted accelerations in Fig. 24a indicate decoup- sponses.
ling is occurring at about 4 s at depths above 13.4 m. The Both the measured and predicted pore pressures show that
predicted pore pressures in Fig. 24b indicate high pore pres- liquefaction did not occur in the denser sand above a depth
sures occurred at depth 19.3 m after about 4 s, with Ru = of 7.4 m. Liquefaction did occur in the denser sand at depth
70%, where Ru is the ratio of excess pore pressure to initial 13.4 m after 30 s due to upward drainage from the looser
vertical effective stress. This is not enough to base isolate layer below 15 m. Liquefaction also occurred in the looser
and cause decoupling. So why the decoupling at 4 s? The sand below a depth of 15 m at the two measurement loca-
looser sand begins at depth 15 m and it is likely that lique- tions after about 20 s.
faction would first occur at or close to this depth. An exami- Pore pressure spikes are much more noticeable in models
nation of predicted response at depths in addition to the 2 and 3, which include a surcharge load, and may arise from
observed points shows that liquefaction, with Ru = 100%, induced rocking that was not modeled in the numerical anal-
first occurred at a depth of 15 m at a time of 4 s, and this ex- ysis.
plains the predicted response.
The measured response of model 3 is more difficult to ex- ERDC centrifuge tests
plain. The measured pore pressures in Fig. 24b show a 100%
pore pressure rise at depth 19.3 m after 20 s. This should A number of centrifuge tests simulating earthquake load-
have caused decoupling of accelerations at all depths above ing under level ground conditions were conducted at ERDC,
19.3 m after 20 s. Instead, the measured accelerations indi- Vicksburg, Mississippi, and these have been described by
cate a gradual decoupling occurring above a depth of 7.4 m Steedman et al. (2000). The main purpose of these tests was

© 2004 NRC Canada

Byrne et al. 207

Fig. 24. (a) Comparison between measured and predicted accelerations of model 3. (b) Comparison between measured and predicted
excess pore pressures of model 3.

Fig. 25. (a) Centrifuge model 5a setup and instrument locations. (b) FLAC model 5a measurement locations.

to investigate liquefaction response at high overburden pres-
sures. The tests were conducted under a range of conditions
and can be broadly grouped into three categories: (1) uni-
form loose sand, (2) dense over loose sand, and (3) dense
over loose sand with a lead surface load.
Typical tests in each category were numerically modeled
and the results compared with the test data (Byrne et al.
2001). The comparison showed that the predicted and mea-
sured accelerations and pore pressures were in reasonable
agreement for categories 1 and 2, provided allowance was

© 2004 NRC Canada

208
Fig. 26. Base input motions of model 5a.
Fig. 27. (a) Comparison between measured and predicted accelerations of model 5a. Sr0 = 98% without densification. (b) Comparison
between measured and predicted excess pore pressures of model 5a. Sr0 = 98% without densification.
made for lack of saturation. The placed saturation was esti-
mated at about 98% to get best overall agreement. For cate-
gory 3 tests with lead loading, however, the agreement was
not good, as shown in the next section for model 5a.
Model 5a
A cross section of model 5a, showing the locations of the
pore pressure transducers and accelerometers and the FLAC
simulation model, is shown in Fig. 25. In this model the
lower portion was placed at Dr = 51% and the upper at Dr =
72% and a surface load of 580 kPa was applied. The applied
base motion is shown in Fig. 26. Results from the FLAC
simulation are shown for two different assumptions for ini-
tial saturation: 98% (Fig. 27) and 97% (Figs. 28, 29).
The predicted and measured accelerations and excess pore
water pressures at prototype depths ranging from 5.5 to
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 41, 2004
25.3 m are shown in Figs. 27a and 27b, respectively. The
predicted pore pressures are significantly higher than the
measured values, and the predicted accelerations are higher
than the measured values for an initial saturation of Sr0 =
98%.
An initial Sr0 = 97% results in significantly lower pore
pressures that are in reasonable agreement with the measure-
ments (Fig. 28b), but the predicted accelerations are higher
than the measured values (Fig. 28a). When stress den-
sification is considered, the predicted pore pressures are sig-
nificantly lower than the measured values in the loose layer
at depth, as shown in Fig. 29b. Figures 27–29 clearly dem-
onstrate the importance of both initial saturation and stress
densification.
Side friction in the ERDC box is a possibility and could
lead to significantly lower stresses, both total and effective,
© 2004 NRC Canada
Byrne et al. 209

Fig. 28. (a) Comparison between measured and predicted accelerations of model 5a. Sr0 = 97% without densification. (b) Comparison
between measured and predicted excess pore pressures of model 5a. Sr0 = 97% without densification.

Fig. 29. (a) Comparison between measured and predicted accelerations of model 5a. Sr0 = 97% with densification. (b) Comparison be-
tween measured and predicted excess pore pressures of model 5a. Sr0 = 97% with densification.

© 2004 NRC Canada

210
Fig. 30. (a) Comparison between measured and predicted accelerations of model 5a. Sr0 = 97% with densification and silo effect.
(b) Comparison between measured and predicted excess pore pressures of model 5a. Sr0 = 97% with densification and silo effect.
particularly near the base of the box, as discussed earlier.
The predicted acceleration and pore pressure responses for
an angle of wall friction of 25° and Sr0 = 97% considering
stress densification are shown in Figs. 30a and 30b, respec-
tively. The predicted pore pressures are in reasonable agree-
ment with the measurements, although the predicted
accelerations are high. It is possible that the curtailment and
flattening off of the observed pore pressures could in fact be
a liquefaction response resulting from lower than expected
total stresses due to side friction or the silo effect. Liquefac-
tion was not predicted in the model, as the silo effect re-
duced with shaking, in agreement with the observation of
Whitman and Lambe (1986).
Summary
Conventional liquefaction assessment procedures indicate
that liquefaction can occur to considerable depths in loose to
medium-dense sand strata. This is based on dynamic analy-
sis and the results of element tests showing that the liquefac-
tion resistance ratio reduces with an increase in confining
stress, the Kσ effect. Pore pressure measurements in better
saturated centrifuge models conducted at RPI indicate that
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 41, 2004
liquefaction occurred at considerable depths (corresponding
to an overburden stress of 300 kPa or more) in loose or
medium-dense sand strata. In centrifuge models where lique-
faction occurred at large depths, the models did show trends
in the development of pore pressure and liquefaction that
were not consistent with state of practice or with state-
of-the-art liquefaction analysis. Numerical analyses were
performed that indicate the centrifuge findings can be ex-
plained in terms of the densification that occurs when high
confining stresses are imposed. Thus a sand that was placed
at Dr = 55% densifies to Dr = 63% at an applied confining
stress of 380 kPa. This change in density can explain the de-
velopment of liquefaction at the ground surface first, with
later propagation downward through the rest of the model.
Some ERDC centrifuge tests simulating the response of a
level ground sand system to seismic loading indicated that
liquefaction was curtailed at high confining stress in the
300 kPa region. Thus the results of these centrifuge tests ap-
peared to be in conflict with both standard procedure and
RPI centrifuge tests. Numerical analyses indicate that these
centrifuge findings can be explained in terms of stress den-
sification, lack of saturation, and (or) the possibility that liq-
uefaction is occurring at pore pressures significantly below
© 2004 NRC Canada
Byrne et al.
the overburden pressures as a result of reduced vertical
stress arising from side friction or the silo effect.
Stress densification will also occur under field conditions
and will improve liquefaction resistance. But stress densifi-
cation is accounted for in principle in conventional liquefac-
tion assessment techniques that are based on penetration
resistance by correcting for confining stress. Penetration re-
sistance values so corrected are a measure of relative density
and so should reflect density changes arising from stress
densification and other factors such as changes in the depo-
sitional environment.
References
Arulanandan, K., and Scott, R.F. 1993. Verification of numerical
procedures for the analysis of soil liquefaction problems. In Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference on the Verification of
Numerical Procedures for the Analysis of Soil Liquefaction
Problems, Davis, Calif., 17–20 Oct. 1993. Edited by K.
Arulanandan and R.F. Scott. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands.
Arulmoli, K., Muraleetharan, K.K., Hosain, M.M., and Fruth, L.S.
1992. VELACS laboratory testing program, soil data report. Re-
port to the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., by
the Earth Technology Corporation, Irvine, Calif.
Beaty, M., and Byrne, P.M. 1998. An effective stress model for
predicting liquefaction behaviour of sand. In Geotechnical earth-
quake engineering and soil dynamics III. Edited by P. Dakoulas,
M. Yegian, and R. Holtz. American Society of Civil Engineers,
Geotechnical Special Publication 75(1), pp. 766–777.
Byrne, P.M. 1991. A cyclic shear-volume coupling and pore pres-
sure model for sand. In Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Mo., 11–15 March.
Vol. 1. pp. 47–55.
Byrne, P.M., Roy, D., Campanella, R.G., and Hughes, J. 1995. Pre-
dicting liquefaction response of granular soils from pressure-
meter tests. In Static and Dynamic Properties of Gravelly Soils:
Proceedings of the ASCE National Convention, San Diego, Ca-
lif., 23–27 Oct. 1995. Edited by M.D. Evans and R.J. Fragaszy.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Special Pub-
lication 56, pp. 122–135.
Byrne, P.M., Beaty, M., and Park, S.-S. 2001. Analyses of ERDC
centrifuge tests using UBCSAND. Report to ERDC, Dec. 2001.
Dafalias, Y.F. 1986. Bounding surface plasticity. I: mathematical
foundation and the concept of hypoplasticity. Journal of Engi-
neering Mechanics, ASCE, 112(9): 966–987.
Elgamal, A.-W., Parra, E., Yang, Z., Dobry, R., and Zeghal, M.
1999. Liquefaction constitutive model. In Physics and Me-
chanics of Soil Liquefaction: Proceedings of the International
Workshop, Baltimore, Md., 10–11 Sept. 1998. Edited by P.V.
Lade and J.A. Yamamuro. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Neth-
erlands. pp. 269–279.
Gonzalez, L., Abdoun, T., and Sharp, M.K. 2002. Modelling of
seismically induced liquefaction under high confining stress. In-
ternational Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, 2(3):
1–15.
Hardin, B.O. 1978. The nature of stress–strain behavior for soils.
In Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics: Proceedings of
the ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Division Specialty Confer-
ence, Pasadena, Calif., 19–21 June 1978. Vol. 1. American Soci-
ety of Civil Engineers, New York. pp. 3–90.
Itasca Consulting Group Inc. 2000. FLAC, version 4.0. Itasca Con-
sulting Group Inc., Minneapolis, Minn.
211
Kammerer, A., Wu, J., Pestana, J., Riemer, M., and Seed, R. 2000.
Cyclic simple shear testing of Nevada sand for PEER Center
project 2051999. Geotechnical Engineering Research Report
UCB/GT/00-01, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Kramer, S., and Arduino, P. 1999. Constitutive modeling of cyclic
mobility and implications for site response. In Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering: Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference, Lisboa, Portugal, 21–25 June 1999. Vol. 3. Edited
by P.S. Sêco e Pinto. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Nether-
lands. pp. 1029–1034.
Marcuson, W.F., and Bieganousky, W.A. 1977. Laboratory standard
penetration tests on fine sands. Journal of the Geotechnical En-
gineering Division, ASCE, 103(GT6): 565–588.
Martin, G.R., Finn, W.D.L., and Seed, H.B. 1975. Fundamentals of
liquefaction under cyclic loading. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, 101(GT5): 423–438.
Matsuoka, H., and Nakai, T. 1977. Stress–strain relationship of soil
based on the SMP. In Proceedings of the Specialty Session 9 of
the 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Founda-
tion Engineering, Tokyo. The Japanese Society of Soil Me-
chanics and Foundation Engineering. pp. 153–162.
Park, S.-S., and Byrne, P.M. 2004. Stress densification and its eval-
uation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 41: 181–186.
Prevost, J.H. 1989. DYNA1D: a computer program for nonlinear
site response analysis. Technical Report NCEER-89-0025, Na-
tional Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State Uni-
versity of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y.
Puebla, H., Byrne, P.M., and Phillips, R. 1997. Analysis of
CANLEX liquefaction embankments: prototype and centrifuge
models. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 34: 641–657.
Rowe, P.W. 1962. The stress-dilatancy relation for static equilib-
rium of an assembly of particles in contact. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London, Mathematical and Physical Sciences,
Series A, 269: 500–557.
Steedman, R.S., Ledbetter, R.H., and Hynes, M.E. 2000. The influ-
ence of high confining stress on the cyclic behavior of saturated
sand. In Soil Dynamics and Liquefaction 2000: Proceedings of
Sessions of Geo-Denver 2000, Denver, Colo., 5–8 Aug. 2000.
Edited by R.Y.S. Pak and J. Yamamuro. American Society of
Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Special Publication 107,
pp. 35–57.
Whitman, R.V., and Lambe, P.C. 1986. Effect of boundary condi-
tions upon centrifuge experiments using ground motion simula-
tion. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 9(2): 61–71.
Youd, T.L., and Idriss, I.M. (Editors). 1997. Proceedings of the
NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of
Soils, Salt Lake City, Utah, 5–6 Jan. 1996. Technical Report
NCEER-97-0022, National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo,
Buffalo, N.Y.
Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G.,
Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Jr., Hynes,
M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson,
W.F., III, Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power,
M.S., Robertson, R.K., Seed, H.B., and Stokoe, K.H., II. 2001.
Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996
NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of
liquefaction resistance of soils. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 127(10): 817–833.
Zienkiewicz, O.C., Chan, A.H.C., Pastor, M., Paul, D.K., and
Shiomi, T. 1990. Static and dynamic behavior of soils: a rational
approach to quantitative solutions. Part I: fully saturated prob-
lems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Mathemati-
cal and Physical Sciences, Series A, 429: 285–309.
© 2004 NRC Canada