ARTICLE IN PRESS

Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

A numerical model to investigate the effects of propagating

liquefied soils on structures
Sami Montassar, Patrick de Buhan *

Laboratoire des Matériaux et Structures du Génie Civil (LCPC, ENPC, CNRS UMR 113), Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees, 6 et 8 av.
Blaise Pascal, Cite Descartes, Champs/Marne, 77455 Marne-la-Vallée Cedex 02, France

Received 23 May 2005; received in revised form 3 February 2006; accepted 8 February 2006

Abstract

This contribution is concerned with the development of a computational method for simulating the propagation of a liquefied soil,
modelled as a Bingham material, while evaluating its effects on adjacent structures. The method is based upon the existence of a min-
imum principle for the velocity field governing the instantaneous evolution of the liquefied soil mass, which is solved by resorting to
a specific numerical algorithm implemented within the context of a finite element formulation. Making use of simplifying assumptions,
the calculation of the drag force induced by the moving soil mass on structures schematized as rigid obstacles, can be performed inde-
pendently, exploiting the same numerical tool. The whole procedure is illustrated on the typical example of a liquefied soil embankment
interacting with a single row of regularly spaced foundation piles placed across the propagating soil mass.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Liquefied soil; Residual shear strength; Viscosity; Bingham model; Drag force; Minimum principle; Finite element method; Decomposition–
co-ordination method

1. Introduction extensive measurements performed on the site of the 1964

Initial flow failure and subsequent propagation of lique-
fied soil masses triggered by the well-known seismically
induced liquefaction phenomenon of saturated granular
soils, may have very serious consequences on the stability
of civil engineering structures, such as bridge piers, founda-
tion piles or lifelines facilities. It is therefore essential to
devise rational design methods capable not only to predict
how such liquefied masses actually propagate, but also to
quantitatively assess the potential damage they may cause
to structures.
A relatively abundant literature has been devoted to deal-
ing with the first aspect of this question. In an attempt to esti-
mate the maximum permanent ground displacement due to
an earthquake, the following empirical formula has been
for instance proposed by Hamada et al. [17] from exploiting
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: debuhan@lmsgc.enpc.fr (P. de Buhan).
Niigita earthquake and 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu earthquake:
pffiffiffiffip
3
ffiffiffi
D ¼ 0:75 H h ð1Þ
where D (m) is the maximum horizontal displacement, H
(m) the depth of the liquefied soil layer and h (%) the great-
er of the slope of ground surface and lower boundary face
of liquefied soil. Such a formula also incorporates the
observations made on the San Fernando earthquake [9].
Likewise, Bartlett and Youd [4] have derived the same kind
relationship based upon data gathered on six earthquakes
in the United States, including the one having occurred
in Alaska in 1964. Even though they remain empirical, that
is based upon the fitting of observed field data, such rela-
tionships provide a first attempt to devise predictive meth-
ods for estimating the amount of permanent ground
displacement induced by seismic liquefaction.
In order to avoid the use of complex finite element non
linear simulations, simplified analytical models and related
calculation methods incorporating the rheological charac-

0266-352X/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2006.02.003
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 S. Montassar, P. de Buhan / Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx
teristics of the liquefied soil, have been developed by Towh-
ata et al. [38–40], in the case of a liquefied soil layer topped
by a non liquefiable soil, in which lateral flow is predomi-
nant. The method, which is based on the application of
the minimum principle for the potential energy, is focused
on the evaluation of the maximum displacements experi-
enced by the liquefied ground under the action of gravity.
It relies upon the following assumptions, some of them
being supported by experimental evidence.
 The lateral displacement is supposed to vary as a sinu-
soidal function of depth, as suggested for instance by
the observations of centrifuge tests, leading to a much
easier numerical treatment of the problem than in the
case of finite element simulations. This makes it possi-
ble to generalize the method to three dimensional situ-
ations, as it has been done by Orense and Towhata
[28].
 The liquefied soil behaves as a Bingham or Newtonian
incompressible fluid, which may exhibit viscous as well
as residual shear strength properties. A constitutive rela-
tionship of the following form is notably proposed by
the authors [38,39]
ou
s¼G þ sr ð2Þ
oz
where u is the lateral permanent displacement, function
of the depth z, s (respectively sr) is the shear stress
(respectively residual shear strength) and G the liquefied
soil shear modulus.
While the first assumption seems quite legitimate, the
adoption of a constitutive law such as (2) for modelling the
constitutive behaviour of liquefied soil may appear some-
what questionable (apart from the particular situation where
G = sr = 0), unless the displacement u is replaced by the
velocity (and the corresponding shear strain by the shear
strain rate), whereas G would denote the viscosity coefficient
instead of the elastic shear modulus (see Eq. (3) below).
It is widely acknowledged today that, in accordance
with the terminology used, a ‘‘liquefied’’ soil behaves as
an incompressible fluid, displaying both viscous and resid-
ual strength properties. Ample experimental evidence of
the viscosity of a liquefied soil, evaluated by different mea-
surement techniques (viscometer, lateral spreading, load
acting on a sphere, etc.) has been provided, the synthesis
of which may be found in Uzuoka et al. [42], Towhata
et al. [38] or Hadush et al. [15,16]. The same kind of exper-
iments makes it possible to evaluate the undrained residual
shear strength of a liquefied soil [35,21,11]. This clearly
indicates that the rheology of a liquefied soil under pure
shear conditions, may be appropriately described by the
following constitutive equation:
s ¼ l_c þ k ð3Þ
where k is the residual shear strength, c_ the shear strain rate
and l the viscosity coefficient. This is the characteristic
equation of a ‘‘yield stress’’ fluid or Bingham material,
adopted by Uzuoka et al. [42] for simulating the post lique-
faction behaviour of liquefied ground, or for dealing with
closely related problems, such as flowslides [29], slurry
flows [6], or mudflows [7,18].
Several simulation techniques have been developed
using such a constitutive equation, namely the so-called
‘‘shallow water approximation’’ [22] or the ‘‘depth inte-
grated method’’ [6,29], based upon the simplifying assump-
tion that the flow is predominantly parallel to the slope,
making it possible to account for very large displacements
of the laterally spreading soil mass, inducing considerable
changes of geometry. In the more general situation where
such a simplification cannot be made, specific simulation
techniques should be developed such as fluid dynamics
based numerical methods [42], finite element [37] or cubic
interpolated pseudoparticle (CIP) method [16].
It should be kept in mind however, that the adoption of
a viscoplastic Bingham model, expressed by Eq. (3), is only
justified in the situation when the consolidation time which
governs the pore pressure dissipation, may be considered
large enough in comparison with the time of propagation.
Indeed, in the case when these two times are of the same
order, the excess pore pressure which is at the origin of
the liquefaction phenomenon, may significantly dissipate
during the propagation, thus allowing the granular soil to
recover its frictional properties, bringing the moving soil
mass to stabilize again. The fundamental assumption upon
which all the previously described approaches, as well as
the numerical scheme developed in this paper, are based,
is that the rheological properties of the liquefied soil, which
may be conveniently captured by means of a Bingham
model, remain constant throughout the whole propagation
process.
Analysing the potentially damaging effects of a propa-
gating liquefied soil on the neighbouring structures, requires
being able to evaluate the corresponding additional loads
applied to these structures by the moving soil mass.
Although being essential for engineering design purposes,
this second aspect has almost exclusively been treated from
an experimental point of view. One may quote for instance
the experimental work by Towhata and Hussaini [38], who
performed tests aimed at evaluating the lateral loading
exerted by a submarine mudflow on offshore structures, as
also the contributions of Yasuda et al. [44] and Towhata
et al. [41] concerning shaking table tests carried out on bur-
ied pipelines. Several experimental studies have also been
undertaken on reduced scale centrifuged models, in order
to investigate the lateral resistance of foundation piles sub-
ject to liquefaction [5,1,19,43]. To the authors’ knowledge,
apart from the works of Dobry et al. [8] and Ishihara and
Cubrinovski [20], who have proposed simplified design
analyses of piles subject to liquefaction induced lateral load-
ing, no other significant contributions can be quoted as
regards the numerical modelling of this kind of problem.
The present contribution is concerned with the presenta-
tion of a fully integrated numerical tool allowing to simul-
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Montassar, P. de Buhan / Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx
taneously analyse the post liquefaction behaviour of a
water-saturated soil mass and its consequences in terms
of additional loadings exerted on the surrounding struc-
tures. The whole procedure, which relies on the application
of a minimum principle for the velocities, analogous to that
employed by Towhata et al. [38–40], is developed in the
context of a liquefied soil modelled as a viscoplastic Bing-
ham material. It is worth emphasizing that the ability of
such a numerical method to produce reliable predictions,
is subject to the condition that the extent and depth of
the liquefied zone, along with its viscous and residual
strength characteristics, are being known quantities, incor-
porated as input data in the analysis.
2. Problem statement
Analysing the post-liquefaction behaviour of a saturated
soil mass entails two different aspects, which are sketched
in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. (a) Evolution problem of a liquefied soil mass; and (b) evaluation
of its action on structures.
Fig. 2. Different views of a row of fixed cylindrical obstacles placed across a propagating liquefied soil mass.
3
(a) The liquefied soil, whose strength has been consider-
ably reduced as a consequence of the liquefaction
process, is first set into motion under the action of
gravity, undergoing very large displacements as it
propagates downhill. It is therefore essential to devise
appropriate methods for tracking the geometry
changes of the moving soil mass as a function of time:
this is the evolution problem.
(b) Assuming that the evolution problem is being solved,
which means that the successive configurations of the
liquefied soil mass are known at any time along with
the attached velocity field, it is essential to evaluate
the efforts (drag forces) exerted by the flowing soil
mass on neighbouring civil engineering structures,
such as bridge piers or deep foundations piles.
In the general case, the comprehensive treatment to this
twofold problem requires a fully coupled complex analysis,
which would lead us far beyond the scope of engineering
design methods. The present contribution is devoted to
the development of a simplified evaluation procedure
aimed at dealing with the particular configuration of a sin-
gle row of vertical cylindrical obstacles placed across the
flow of a liquefied soil, as shown in Fig. 2.
The following simplifying assumption are made
throughout the paper.
 The obstacles are fixed, vertical and remain undeformed
under the action of the liquefied soil. This hypothesis
should be reconsidered in the case of obstacles such as
for example flexible foundation piles, the deflection of
which would of the same order of magnitude as the liq-
uefied soil displacements.
 The presence of such obstacles does not significantly
affect the propagation of the liquefied soil. This means
from a practical point of view that the spacing 2H
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 S. Montassar, P. de Buhan / Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx
between two adjacent obstacles may be considered as sig-
nificantly larger than their diameter D = 2R. Such an
hypothesis implies that the problem of predicting the
evolution of the liquefied ground can be solved indepen-
dently from the calculation of the efforts on the obstacles.
 Furthermore, let F(y) denote the density per unit vertical
length of the drag force horizontal component exerted
by the liquefied soil on each individual obstacle. This
density may be evaluated from the solution to the two-
dimensional stationary flow problem sketched in
Fig. 2c, where uniform velocity boundary conditions
are imposed at sufficient upstream and downstream dis-
tances from the obstacle. Its value, considered as an
input parameter for the stationary flow problem, is
equal to the horizontal component Ux(y) of the velocity
of the liquefied ground at the point where the obstacle is
located, which has been previously calculated from the
evolution problem.
Solving the evolution problem of the liquefied soil mass
as well as the stationary flow problem around the obstacle
in order to calculate the drag force, requires to specify the
rheological behaviour of the liquefied soil. As previously
discussed in the introduction, the Bingham model appears
to provide a realistic description of such a post-liquefaction
behaviour, both in terms of residual shear strength and vis-
cosity exhibited by such kind of material. Expressed in full
tensorial form as a stress–strain rate relationship, such a
constitutive behaviour may be written as (see [25], for more
details):
pffiffiffi d
r ¼ pI þ 2ld þ k 2 if d 6¼ 0
kdk
ksk
d¼0 if f ðrÞ ¼ pffiffiffi  k 6 0
2
div U ¼ tr d ¼ 0
In these equations, r is the Cauchy stress tensor, s its devia-
toric part, p =  1/3tr r is the mean pressure, which can be
interpreted as the Lagrange multiplier associated with the
incompressibility condition (6), where d is the strain rate ten-
sor, and f(r) is the von Mises function which involves the
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
norm of the stress deviator ksk ¼ s : s. It is worth noting
that the purely viscous Newtonian model is recovered from
the Bingham model when the shear strength k is reduced to
zero, while the so-called ‘‘rigid-plastic’’ model is obtained
when the viscosity coefficient l tends to zero.
3. A velocity minimum principle for solving the evolution
problem
The liquefied soil mass is described within the frame-
work of three-dimensional continuum mechanics as occu-
pying a geometrical domain X0 in its initial configuration
at time t = 0, immediately after the liquefaction process
has been triggered. The subsequent propagation of this liq-
uefied soil mass, subject to the sole action of gravity, is
characterised by the velocity field U(x,t) defined at any
point x on its current configuration Xt at time t P 0.
As sketched in Fig. 3 the external boundary oXt of Xt is
subdivided into two complementary surfaces oXrt and oXUt .
oXrt remains stress-free, that is:
8t; 8x 2 @Xrt ; rðx; tÞ  nðx; tÞ ¼ 0 ð7Þ
where n(x,t) is the external unit normal to oXrt ,
while slip-
page boundary conditions proposed by Fortin et al. [13],
are imposed on Rt which denotes the interface between
the liquefied soil and the rigid substratum, located within
the liquefied soil mass along the boundary surface oXUt
(Fig. 3).
The velocity V of any point belonging to the liquefied
soil mass at the interface Rt, which is equal to the velocity
jump across Rt following the unit normal m, since the veloc-
ity of any point of the rigid substratum is zero, must
remain tangential
8t; 8x 2 Rt ; V ðx; tÞ  mðx; tÞ ¼ 0 ð8Þ
and the following slip boundary conditions are applied on
Rt (Fig. 4):
V
s ¼ l V þ k  if V 6¼ 0 ð9Þ
jV j
V ¼ 0 if jsj 6 k  ð10Þ
where s = T  (T Æ m) m is the shear stress vector exerted by
the liquefied soil on the substratum, k* is the interface shear
strength below which no slippage occurs, and l* is a viscos-
ity coefficient. The particular case of the perfect bonding
ð4Þ condition is recovered when taking k* ! 1. The similarity
between the above boundary conditions and the constitu-
tive Eqs. (4)–(6) of the Bingham model is to be noticed, be-
ð5Þ
ð6Þ
Fig. 3. Initial and current configurations of a liquefied soil mass subject to
gravitational forces.
Fig. 4. Imposition of a non-linear friction boundary condition allowing
for possible slippage at the liquefied soil/substratum interface.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Montassar, P. de Buhan / Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 5

cause it will be helpful in the numerical treatment of the rate field and velocity jump distribution across the soil/sub-
problem. stratum interface, as minimization variables denoted by d 0
Let us now introduce the sets S(t) of statically admissible and v 0 , respectively, linked to the velocity field by the fol-
stress fields r 0 , and K(t) of kinematically admissible incom- lowing constraints:
pressible velocity fields U 0 defined, respectively as: d0 ¼ dðU 0 Þ ¼ 1=2ðgrad U 0 þT grad U 0 Þ on Xt ð15Þ
(
div r0 þ qg ¼ 0 8x 2 Xt
r0 2 SðtÞ () ð11Þ and
r0  n ¼ 0 8x 2 @Xrt v0 ¼ V 0 ; V 0  m ¼ 0; on Rt ð16Þ
 0 0
0
div U 0 ¼ 0 on Xt Denoting by k and w the Lagrange multipliers associated
U 2 KðtÞ () ð12Þ with the above constraints (15) and (16), the minimisation
V 0  m ¼ 0 on Rt
problem defined by (10) and (11) leads to a generalised sad-
A velocity field U 2 K(t) is a solution for the evolution dle-point problem of the form:
problem if it is associated with a stress field r 2 S(t)
Lr ðU  ; p ; d ; k ; v ; w Þ
through the constitutive Eqs. (4), (5), (9) and (10). It has
been proved in [24,25] that such a solution U realises the ¼ min
0
max
0
min
0
max
0
min
0
max
0
Lr ðU 0 ; p0 ; d0 ; k0 ; v0 ; w0 Þ
U p d k v w
minimum of the following functional defined on K(t):
ð17Þ
F ðU Þ ¼ MinfF ðU 0 Þ; U 0 2 KðtÞg ð13Þ
where
with Z Z pffiffiffi
Z Z  Z Lr ðU 0 ; p0 ;d0 ;k0 ; v0 ; w0 Þ ¼
2
lkd0 k dXt þ k 2kd0 kdXt
2 l 2
F ðU 0 Þ ¼ lkd 0 k dXt þ jV 0 j dRt  qg  U 0 dXt Zt
X Xt
Z
Xt Rt 2 Xt
Z pffiffiffi Z  0
qg  U dXt p0 divU 0 dXt
þ k 2kd 0 kdXt þ k  jV 0 jdRt ð14Þ X
Z t
Xt
Z 
Xt Rt
0 0 0 l 02
þ k : ðd  d ÞdXt þ jv j dRt
The two first integrals appearing on the upper line of (14) Xt Rt 2
Z Z
are equal to half the viscous dissipation, while the third
integral corresponds to the work of gravity, which is the þ k  jv0 jdRt þ w0  ðV 0  v0 ÞdRt
R Rt
unique external force. The lower line of integrals is equal Z t
r1 2
to the plastic dissipation. This minimum principle is analo- þ ðdivU 0 Þ dXt
Xt 2
gous to the minimum of potential energy invoked by Z
Towhata et al. [38–40], which has been briefly described r2 0 2
þ kd  d0 k dXt
in Section 1. In the particular case when the residual shear Xt 2
Z
strength is equal to zero, so that the liquefied soil is mod- r3 0 2
þ jV  v0 j dRt ð18Þ
elled as a Newtonian fluid, F reduces to a quadratic func- R 2
tional, and the principle is analogous to the minimum of is the augmented Lagrangian functional defined for all
potential energy established in the context of linear elastic- r1 > 0, r2 > 0 and r3 > 0, whereas p 0 is the Lagrange multi-
ity (see for instance [33]), except that the velocity field is plier associated with the incompressibility condition. It is
substituted to the displacement field. to be noticed that, for any choice of parameters
In the general case, this functional is non-differentiable (r1, r2, r3), the solution ðU~ ; ~p; ~d; ~k; ~v; w~ Þ to the above sad-
due to the presence of the plastic dissipation terms. The res- dle-point problem (17) verifies in particular:
olution of the minimisation problem (13) then requires a ~ ¼U
U ð19Þ
special treatment. The decomposition–co-ordination
method by augmented Lagrangian, proposed by Fortin Such a solution can be calculated using the following
and Glowinski [12], has proved its efficiency for dealing generalised Uzawa’s algorithm proposed by Fortin and
with such a numerical problem (see [24,25] for a compari- Glowinski [12] and adapted to our problem [24,25]
son with other numerical methods).
 Step 1: Initialisation at iteration i = 0; p(0), k(0), w(0) and
4. Numerical treatment: the decomposition–coordination U(0) are arbitrarily specified.
method by augmented Lagrangian  Step 2: for any i P 1 :
– Calculate d(i) as a function of k(i1) and U(i1) using
The present section is devoted to a general outline of the the following relationship:
numerical method adopted for performing the above min- * pffiffiffi +
ðiÞ 1 k 2
imization procedure, without going into details of any d ¼ 1  ði1Þ bði1Þ with
mathematical and theoretical justification, which may be 2l þ r2 kb k
found for instance in [12] Glowinski and Le Tallec [14], bði1Þ ¼ kði1Þ þ r2 dðU ði1Þ Þ and hi ¼ supf; 0g
Fortin et al. [13] or more recently Roquet and Saramito
[31]. Its principle is based on the introduction of the strain ð20Þ
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

6 S. Montassar, P. de Buhan / Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

– Calculate v(i) as a function of w(i1) and U(i1) using : terms have to be taken into account, notably in the initial
  phase of propagation, since such a principle still applies,
ðiÞ 1 k
v ¼  1  ði1Þ xði1Þ with provided that the acceleration field is being known. In such
l þ r3 jx j
a case the linear system (26) becomes:
xði1Þ ¼ wði1Þ þ r3 V ði1Þ ð21Þ
½DfU g ¼ fF g  fAg ð27Þ
– Update the Lagrange multipliers associated with con-
where {A} represents the acceleration terms, which may be
straints (15) and (16) :
approximated as follows at current time t:
kðiÞ ¼ kði1Þ þ r2 ðdðU ði1Þ Þ  dðiÞ Þ ð22Þ fU gðtÞ  fU gðt  DtÞ
ðiÞ ði1Þ ði1Þ ðiÞ
fAgðtÞ ¼ ½M ð28Þ
w ¼w þ r3 ðV v Þ ð23Þ Dt
– Find U(i) as a function of p(i1), d(i), k(i), v(i) and w(i) by where [M] is the matrix of masses, and {U}(t) (respectively
minimising the following functional, which is qua- {U}(t  Dt)) is the vector of nodal velocities at time t
dratic with respect to U 0 : (respectively at the previous time step t  Dt), so that the
linear system to be solved becomes:
GðU ðiÞ ; pði1Þ ; dðiÞ ;kðiÞ ; vðiÞ ; wðiÞ Þ
8R R ði1Þ
> r1 0 2 0 >
> Xt h2ðdivU Þ dXt  Xt p divU dX
>
< i
t >
R r2 0 ðiÞ ðiÞ 0
¼ Min ðdðU Þ  2d Þ þ k : dðU Þ dXt
U0 > >
Xt 2 >
: þ R
r3 ðV 0  2vðiÞ Þ þ wðiÞ  V 0  dR  R qg  U 0 dX
> >
Rt 2 t Xt
ð24Þ
– Update the Lagrange multiplier associated with the
incompressibility condition:
pðiÞ ¼ pði1Þ  r1 div U ðiÞ ð25Þ
 Step 3: Application of convergence tests.
According to Fortin and Glowinski [12], the explicit for-
mula (20) (respectively (21)) represents the solution to the
minimisation of Lr with respect to d (respectively v), with
U, p, k, v and w (resp. U, p, d, k and w) being kept fixed.
Owing to the decomposition procedure, the above described
algorithm transforms the initial non-differentiable problem
(13) into a family of classical problems (explicit computa-
tions for (20) and (21) and standard minimisation of a qua-
dratic functional for (24)), co-ordinated via the Lagrange
multipliers, updated at each iteration through Eqs. (22),
(23) and (25).
The minimisation procedure of the quadratic form (24)
is carried out numerically in the context of the finite ele-
ment method. The evolution problem being treated as a
plane-strain two-dimensional problem, the volume of liq-
uefied soil is discretized into a finite element mesh made
of four-noded quadrilateral elements with linearly varying
velocities, so that performing the minimization (24) reduces
to solving a linear system of the general form:
½DfU g ¼ fF g ð26Þ
where {U} is the column matrix formed by all the nodal
velocities, and {F} represents the external forces (grav-
ity).The choice of this kind of elements is primarily justified
by the fact that it lends itself very easily to the simulation of
the very large deformations experienced by the liquefied
soil during it propagation [24].
The minimum principle and related numerical algorithm
may be readily extended to the case when acceleration

9 ½M ½M
½D þ fU gðtÞ ¼ fF g þ fU gðt  DtÞ ð29Þ
>
= Dt Dt
Finally, the simulation of the evolution problem is car-
>
; ried out in an incremental way, by updating the geometry
t
of the propagating soil mass from time t to time t + Dt,
according to the following explicit relationship:
fxgðt þ DtÞ ffi fxgðtÞ þ DtfU gðtÞ ð30Þ
where {x} denotes the set of co-ordinates of all the nodes of
the finite element mesh, considered as material points.
The whole above described numerical procedure for
simulating the lateral flow of liquefied soil has been favour-
ably compared [24] with the reference analytical solution
obtained in the particular situation of a uniform layer of
liquefied soil moving on an inclined substratum [24,26].
5. Evaluation of the efforts exerted on structures
The previously elaborated numerical method, based on
the minimum principle for the velocities, is now applied to
calculate the drag force exerted by the propagating liquefied
soil on structures, in the particular situation shown in Fig. 2c,
where it reduces to solving a quasistatic steady flow problem
of a Bingham material around a circular obstacle in the
(x, z)-plane. On account of the different symmetries exhib-
ited by such a problem, it may be easily shown that the flow
domain to be considered in the analysis may be restricted to
the region of the plane defined by the following conditions:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0 6 x 6 L; 0 6 z 6 H ; r ¼ x2 þ z2 P R ð31Þ
where the horizontal extension L is significantly larger than
H. The corresponding boundary conditions are (Fig. 5):
 Uniform velocity imposed on the right-hand side x = L:
Ux ¼ U; Uz ¼ 0 ð32Þ
 Left-hand side x = 0:
T x ¼ 0; Uz ¼ 0 ð33Þ
 Upper and lower sides z = 0, H:
T x ¼ 0; Uz ¼ 0 ð34Þ
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Montassar, P. de Buhan / Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 7

100

80
present simulations

60
∗
F (N ) Mitsoulis (2004)
40

20
Fig. 5. Boundary conditions for analysing the stationary flow problem
relative to the evaluation of the drag force.
0
 Contact surface with the obstacle r = R: 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

U ¼0 ð35Þ
Note that in conditions (33) and (34), Tx represents the
horizontal component of the stress vector acting upon the
corresponding boundary.
The numerical simulations, have been carried out for
L = 6H, varying the ratio H/R between 2 and 50.
H /R
Fig. 7. Evaluations of the non dimensional drag force as a function of the
relative spacing between obstacles: case of Newtonian fluid.
may be fitted by a curve, drawn in the same figure (solid
curve), defined by the following equation:
4p
F ðN Þ ¼
lnðH =RÞ þ a1 þ a2 ðR=H Þ þ a3 ðR=H Þ4 þ a4 ðR=H Þ6 þ a5 ðR=H Þ8
2

Fig. 6 shows a typical finite element mesh of the ð38Þ

flow domain (H/R = 3). The drag force per unit transver-
sal length along the y-direction may be calculated as
follows:
Z p=2
F ¼4 ex  rðr ¼ R; hÞ  er R dh ð36Þ
0 a1 ¼ 0:661; a2 ¼ 1:985; a3 ¼ 25:332;
since r(R,h) Æer is the stress vector applied by the liquefied
soil in each point (R, h) of the obstacle.
5.1. Newtonian model of liquefied soil (k = 0)
It may be easily shown from dimensional analysis argu-
ments that, in the case of a purely viscous Newtonian fluid,
characterized by its sole viscosity coefficient l, the drag
force density may be put in the following form:
F ðN Þ ¼ lUF ðN Þ ½H =R
where the coefficients ai, i = 1, . . ., 5, involved in the above
formula, have been calculated using the least square
method:
a4 ¼ 193:823; a5 ¼ 443:505. ð39Þ
Referring to the slightly different problem of the flow
around a cylinder kept between parallel plates, Faxén
[10], and quite recently Mitsoulis [23], have produced the
same kind of evaluation reported in the same figure, where
the squares correspond to the numerical simulations per-
formed by Mitsoulis, while the dashed curve is obtained
from fitting formula (38). As could be expected, the numer-
ical simulation of the latter problem leads to slightly over-
estimating the non dimensional drag force, both estimates
ð37Þ converging to zero as the relative spacing tends to infinity.

where F ðN Þ is a dimensionless factor which is a function of

the sole relative spacing H/R. 5.2. Viscoplastic Bingham model
Fig. 7 displays the evaluation of this factor (triangles)
obtained from the finite element simulations. Following This kind of problem has already been investigated in
the suggestion made by Faxén [10] these numerical points the case of a non-viscous soil (‘‘rigid-plastic’’ model:

Fig. 6. Finite element mesh of the flow domain adopted for H/R = 3.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

8 S. Montassar, P. de Buhan / Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

l = 0) by several authors such as Randolph and Houlsby Table 1

[30], Murff et al. [27], or more recently Salençon [34] in Coefficients a and b involved in Eq. (42) evaluated for different relative
spacings of the obstacles
the context of the limit analysis or yield design theory. It
has been extended to the case of a Bingham material by H/R F ðNÞ a b
Adachi and Yoshioka [2] making use of variational 2/1 52.059 0.531 0.963
principles. 3/1 23.117 1.197 0.958
4/1 15.886 2.127 0.881
Let F(B) denote the drag force per unit length of the 10/1 7.58 7.345 0.801
obstacle exerted by the liquefied soil modelled as a visco- 15/1 6.318 9.835 0.855
plastic Bingham medium, characterized by its residual 20/1 5.701 15.021 0.796
shear strength k along with its viscosity coefficient l. 25/1 5.437 18.88 0.788
Resorting once again to dimensional analysis, such a drag 30/1 5.212 19.457 0.801
35/1 5.056 25.89 0.762
force density may be written as: 40/1 4.936 25.23 0.784
F ðBÞ ¼ lUF ðBÞ ½H =R; Bn  ð40Þ 50/1 4.774 29.486 0.764

where F ðBÞ is the non dimensional drag force coefficient
depending not only of the relative spacing H/R, but also
on the dimensionless Bingham number defined as:
kR
Bn ¼
lU
which compares the contribution of the shear strength to
that of the viscosity of the Bingham material. The case of
Newtonian fluid is obviously recovered when Bn ! 0. The
numerical simulations where carried out for different values
of the ratio H/R, varying the residual shear strength k,
while keeping all the other parameters of the problem,
namely R, l and U, constant and equal to unity. The re-
sults of such simulations are shown in Fig. 8, in the form
of a series of curves giving the non dimensional drag force
coefficient F ðBÞ as a function of H/R and Bn. As suggested
by Zisis and Mitsoulis [45] who carried out the same kind
of FEM simulations using a regularized Bingham model,
the numerical points reported in this figure have been fitted
by solid curves obeying the following analytical expression:
b
F ðBÞ ðH =R; Bn Þ ¼ F ðN Þ ðH =RÞ½1 þ aBn 
where F ðBÞ
is given by Eq. (38), whereas coefficients a and b
are both functions of H/R only.
All the results derived from these numerical simulations
are summed up in Table 1 below. This table, combined
with formula (38) along with (39), makes it possible to
compute in a very straightforward manner, the drag force
ð41Þ per unit length exerted by a propagating liquefied soil on
a row of evenly spaced cylindrical obstacles.
6. An illustrative example
The whole numerical procedure will now be illustrated
on the example sketched in Fig. 9. The liquefied soil mass
under consideration occupies in its initial configuration at
time t = 0 a quadrilateral domain of height 1 m and hori-
zontal extension equal to 3 m along its bottom, where it
relies upon a horizontal substratum. Its left hand side also
remains in contact with such a substratum, while no sur-
charge is applied to the upper and right hand surfaces.
The only driving force is the liquefied soil specific weight
equal to 18 kN/m2. A row of regularly spaced vertical
cylindrical obstacles is placed at a horizontal distance of
ð42Þ x = 2 m from the lower left hand corner of the embank-
ment, taken as the origin of the axes. Their diameter is

100000 F(B∗ )
2m 0.2m F (y)
10000

1000

y
100 H /R=2 2m

3
10 10 ρg = 18 kN/m3
50 F (y)
1m
1
Bn 10
0.001 00.1 0.1 1 10 100 1000 x

Fig. 8. Numerical evaluations of the non dimensional drag force 1

3m
coefficient as a function of the Bingham number for different values of
the relative spacing between obstacles. Fig. 9. Liquefied soil embankment in its initial configuration.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Montassar, P. de Buhan / Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx
equal to 0.2 m, while the interval between two neighbour-
ing obstacles is taken equal to 2 m, so that H/R = 10.
The different simulations are performed for a coefficient
of viscosity equal to l = 1 kPa s, the undrained shear
strength being progressively increased from 0 to 4 kPa.
Referring to the values reported in Table 1, it follows that
the drag force density applied by the propagating liquefied
soil characterized locally by its horizontal velocity Ux
(x = 2 m, y) at depth y is:
 0:801
0:1k
F ðyÞ ¼ 7:58U x ð2; yÞ 1 þ 7:345 ð43Þ
U x ð2; yÞ
where the value of F(y) is expressed in kN/m, while the un-
drained shear strength k and the velocity Ux(y) are ex-
pressed in kPa and m/s, respectively. A relatively coarse
and regular mesh comprising 10 · 30 quadrilateral ele-
ments is used throughout the different simulations.
6.1. Influence of the undrained shear strength
A first series of simulations is performed, assuming that
the liquefied soil mass is perfectly bonded to the substratum
along the lower and left-hand sides, which means that no
velocity discontinuity is allowed along these boundaries.
Adopting a time increment equal to Dt = 0.02 s, the evolu-
tion of the liquefied embankment is simulated up to t = 1 s.
The corresponding deformed configurations of the
embankment for increasing values of the undrained shear
strength are pictured in Fig. 10.
This figure clearly shows that the adoption of a Bingham
instead of a Newton model for describing the rheological
behaviour of the liquefied soil, that is the introduction of
an undrained shear strength in addition to the viscosity,
results in considerably limiting the amplitude of the geom-
etry changes experienced by the liquefied soil. This is con-
Fig. 10. Deformed configurations at time t = 1 s of the liquefied soil embankment for different values of the undrained shear strength, and corresponding
drag force profiles on the obstacles.
9
firmed by the observation of the instantaneous velocity
field represented by a distribution of arrows attached to
the nodal points of the mesh: the volume of liquefied soil
involved in the flow failure of the embankment, that is
experiencing large deformations, is becoming less extensive
as the liquefied soil strength increases, almost disappearing
for k = 4 kPa. Furthermore, it should be noted that, con-
trary to what is observed, either in centrifuge experiments
or by means of the present numerical procedure [24], in
the case of an infinite layer of liquefied soil flowing down
an inclined slope, the point of maximum velocity (and
hence displacement) is not located on the ground surface
but, as shown in Fig. 10 tends to approach the toe of the
embankment, as the residual shear strength increases. This
is of course to be attributed to the particular configuration
of the liquefied soil mass, where the vertical facing remains
stress free.
This is corroborated by referring to a limit analysis (or
yield design) point of view. Indeed, it may be shown
[18,26], that viscoplastic flow failure of any liquefied soil
structure will occur as soon as the latter is proved to be
unstable in the sense of limit analysis. In the present case,
a classical result states (see for instance [32]) that the stabil-
ity of a vertical embankment of height h, as that considered
in our simulations, is ensured as far as its stability factor
remains lower than a critical value, which is close to 3.8:
qgh
6 K ffi 3:8 ð44Þ
k
thus indicating that the liquefied soil embankment will not
propagate as soon as the undrained shear strength exceeds
the following value:
qgh 18  1
kP ffi ffi 4:73 kPa ð45Þ
K 3:8
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 S. Montassar, P. de Buhan / Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx
The distributions of the drag force F(y) exerted by the
propagating soil on the row of vertical piles are pictured
in the same figure. They are derived from the profiles of
horizontal velocities of the liquefied soil along the vertical
line where the obstacles are located, previously deduced
from the evolution problem, by using formula (43). These
profiles are decreasing from a maximum value reached at
the top of the embankment to zero at the bottom. More-
over, it can be observed that, every other parameter being
held constant, this profile increases in a first stage with the
undrained shear strength, passing through a maximum for
k = 1–2 kPa, then decreases again down to almost vanish-
ing for k = 4 kPa. This could be tentatively explained from
examining formula (43), which shows that the drag force is
an increasing function of k, while at the same time the hor-
izontal velocity component involved in this equation is a
decreasing function of k.
6.2. Introduction of a friction boundary condition
The perfect bonding condition imposed at the interface
between the liquefied soil and the substratum in the previ-
ous set of simulations, may lead to somewhat unrealistic
results as regards for instance the deformations experi-
enced by the liquefied soil in the vicinity of the toe of the
embankment, where excessive mesh distortion appears as
time passes, leading to an ill-conditioned problem. This is
why such a condition should be relaxed by the introduction
of a friction boundary condition, allowing for possible slip-
page beyond a shear stress value. Therefore the same kind
of simulation has been performed for the following set of
rheological parameters:
Fig. 11. Successive configurations of the liquefied soil embankment and associated drag force profiles as a function of time, taking a friction boundary
condition into account.
l ¼ 1 kPa s; k ¼ 2 kPa; l ¼ 1 kPa s m;
k  ¼ 1 kPa ð46Þ
It should be noted in particular, that the selected value of
the soil-substratum strength parameter k* should be lower
than that of the liquefied soil strength k, otherwise the
introduction of such a friction boundary condition will
have no influence of the liquefied soil propagation.
Fig. 11 pictures a selected set of successive configurations
of the embankment at regular time intervals between t = 0 s
and t = 1.5 s. Comparing the configuration obtained for
t = 1 s with that of Fig. 10 for k = 2 kPa, gives clear evi-
dence of the influence of the friction boundary condition
both on the amplitude of the liquefied soil propagation
and on the drag force profile. As regards the first aspect,
Fig. 11 shows that the liquefied soil is no more adherent
to the substratum, the slippage condition being activated
along the bottom horizontal substratum. This leads to
much larger values for the velocities, and hence for the
cumulated displacements, notably near the toe of the
embankment, while the drag force profile is significantly dif-
ferent from that observed in the case of the perfect bonding
condition. Furthermore, the extension of the volume of
propagating liquefied soil is larger in this second simulation.
It is to be noted that selecting appropriate values of
parameters l* and k* to be incorporated into the analysis,
remains a difficult task. This is due to the complete lack of
available experimental data in the field of geotechnical engi-
neering, whereas the introduction of such a slip boundary
condition is of primary importance for the simulation of
non-Newtonian fluids in the material process industries
[13]. It could provide however, a relevant description for a
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Montassar, P. de Buhan / Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx
40
quasi - static evolution
30
R (k N ) 20
10
0 t(s)
0 0.5
Fig. 12. Evolution of the resultant drag force as a function of time: quasi-static vs. dynamic simulations.
thin layer of liquefied soil, modelled as a Bingham fluid,
across which the velocity increases from zero to a finite value.
Finally, in order to assess the role played by the acceler-
ation forces in the propagation of the liquefied soil mass
and consequently on the evaluation of the drag force
exerted on the structures, curves giving the resultant drag
force defined as:
Z y¼lðtÞ
RðtÞ ¼ F ðy; tÞ dy ð47Þ
y¼0
where l(t) denotes the length of the obstacle remaining in
contact with the liquefied soil embankment in its current
configuration (l(t = 0) = 1 m), have been drawn in Fig. 12
as a function of time up to 3 s. The curve exhibiting a max-
imum value of R(t @ 0.4s) @ 21.6 kN corresponds to the dy-
namic simulation, where inertia forces have been accounted
for, while the curve which monotonically decreases from an
initial maximum value of R(t = 0) @ 42 kN is associated
with a quasi-static simulation, where the acceleration forces
have been neglected. The fact that, in the latter simulation,
the initial value of the drag force is not equal to zero, comes
from the quasi-static approximation, since in such a case,
the velocity field attached to the initial configuration (and
hence the drag force distribution: see Fig. 11) is also non-
zero. Fig. 12 shows that, even though both curves become
almost coincident after an elapsed time of 1.5 s, they are
quite significantly different in the first stage of propagation.
It turns out in particular that, owing to such acceleration
forces, the maximum peak value of the resultant drag force
is significantly reduced (almost cut in half in the present
example).
7. Concluding remarks
A general procedure based upon the numerical imple-
mentation of a variational principle for the velocities, com-
bined with a time-step integration algorithm, has been
proposed in order to predict the propagation of a liquefied
soil mass, modelled as a Bingham material, even in the case
when large displacements are involved. The effect of such a
moving liquefied soil on structures is then investigated
11
dynamic evolution
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
using the same numerical approach (decomposition–co-
ordination method), making it thus possible for instance
to evaluate the drag force applied by the liquefied soil on
a pile foundation modelled as a fixed obstacle. A fully inte-
grated computational tool dealing with both aspects simul-
taneously has been set up in the simplified situation when
the evolution problem can be solved independently from
the evaluation of the drag forces applied to the structures.
Its feasibility has been demonstrated on an illustrative
example, and preliminary comments have been made on
the relative influence of some key parameters such as the
liquefied soil or soil-substratum shear strengths.
Looking forward to devising an engineering design-ori-
ented numerical code, further improvements may be con-
sidered in the near future:
 The generalization of the method to three dimensional
situations, which would probably require significant
progress as regards finite element discretization tech-
niques, although decisive simplifications, such as the
‘‘shallow water approximation’’, could be envisaged in
the frequently encountered situation when the liquefied
soil flow is predominantly parallel to a plane.
 The use of remeshing techniques such as those devel-
oped in the quite different context of the simulation
metal-forming processes (see for instance [3]) where
large strains are also involved, which may induce exces-
sive mesh distortion and thus affect the numerical accu-
racy of the computations.
 Extending the approach to the case when the evolution
problem can no longer be disconnected from the evalu-
ation of the forces exerted on structures. Such a situa-
tion arises when the characteristic size of the latter is
not sufficiently small with respect to the overall dimen-
sions of the propagating liquefied soil mass.
It should however be kept in mind that the validity of the
whole procedure relies upon the assumption that both the
viscosity and shear strength parameters governing the lique-
fied soil, which are captured through the adoption of a
Bingham model, remain constant and unaffected by the
propagation. A procedure could however be imagined in
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 S. Montassar, P. de Buhan / Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx
which for instance, due to the dissipation of the excess pore
pressures as time passes, the soil may be recovering its
strength, which could be modelled by a corresponding
increase with time of parameter k and possibly l in the Bing-
ham model.
The precise evaluation of these parameters by appropriate
in situ or laboratory experimental tests remains a difficult
task for the geotechnical engineer. A possible line of
research, which is currently in progress, consists in imple-
menting the numerical procedure developed in this paper
for simulating the response of liquefied sand in the free field,
and compare the velocity and displacement profiles so-
obtained with experimental results drawn from centrifuge
model tests on earthquake-induced lateral spreading using
a laminar box [36]. This would serve the double purpose of
validating the proposed numerical scheme and related com-
puter code on the one hand, assessing realistic values to the
key constitutive parameters of liquefied soil (k and l) from
a back calculation procedure, on the other hand.
References
[1] Abdoun T, Dobry R, O’Rourke TD, Goh SH. Pile response to lateral
spreads: centrifuge modeling. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
2003;129(10):869–78.
[2] Adachi K, Yoshioka N. On creeping flow of a visco-plastic fluid past
a circular cylinder. Chem Eng Sci 1973;28:215–26.
[3] Aymone JLF, Bittencourt E, Creus GJ. Simulation of 3D metal-
forming using an arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian finite element
method. J Mater Process Technol 2001;110:218–32.
[4] Bartlet SF, Youd TL, Empirical prediction of lateral displacement.
In: Proceedings of the 4th US–Japan workshop on earthquake
resistant design of lifeline facilities and countermeasures against soil
liquefaction, vol. 1, Technical Report, NCEER-92-0019, Honolulu,
USA; 1992. p. 65–351.
[5] Boulanger RW, Wilson WW, Kutter BL, Soil–pipe-superstructure
interaction in liquefiable sand, Transportation Research Record 1569,
Transportation Research Board, Washington (DC); 1997.
[6] Chen H, Lee CF. Runout analysis of slurry flows with Bingham
model. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2002;128(12):1032–42.
[7] Coussot PH. Steady, laminar flow of concentrated mud suspension in
open channel. J Hydraul Res 1994;32(4):535–59.
[8] Dobry R, Abdoun T, O’Rourke TD, Goh SH. Single piles in lateral
spreads: field bending moment evaluation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
2003;129(10):879–89.
[9] Fallgren RB, Smith JL , Ground displacement at San Fernando valley
juvenile hall during San Fernando earthquake. In: San Fernando
California earthquake of February 9, 1971, vol. 3, US Dept. of
Commerce, NOAA, Washington (DC); 1973. p. 189–196.
[10] Faxèn OH. Forces exerted on a rigid cylinder in a viscous fluid
between two parallel fixed planes. Proc Roy Swedish Acad Eng Sci
1946;187:1–13.
[11] Finn WDL. State-of-the-art of geotechnical earthquake engineering
practice. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 2000;20:1–15.
[12] Fortin M, Glowinski R. Augmented Lagrangian methods. Amster-
dam: North-Holland; 1983.
[13] Fortin A, Côté D, Tanguy PA. On the imposition of friction
boundary conditions for the numerical simulations of Bingham fluid
flows. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 1991;88:97–109.
[14] Glowinski R, Le Tallec P. Augmented Lagrangian and operator
splitting method in non-linear mechanics. SIAM Stud Appl Math 1989.
[15] Hadush S, Yashima A, Uzuoka R. Importance of viscous fluid
characteristics in liquefaction induced lateral spreading analysis.
Comput Geotech 2000;27:199–224.
[16] Hadush S, Yashima A, Uzuoka R, Moriguchi S, Sawada K.
Liquefaction induced lateral spread analysis using the CIP method.
Comput Geotech 2001;28:549–74.
[17] Hamada M, Towhata I, Yasuda S, Isoyama R. Study on permanent
ground displacement induced by seismic liquefaction. Comput
Geotech 1987;4:197–220.
[18] Hild P, Ionescu IR, Lachand-Robert T, Rosca I. The blocking of an
inhomogeneous Bingham fluid. Applications to landslides. Math
Modell Numer Anal 2002;36(6):1013–26.
[19] Imamura S, Hagiwara T, Tsukamoto Y, Ishihara K. Response of pile
groups against seismically induced lateral flow in centrifuge model
tests. Soils Foundat 2004;44(3):39–55.
[20] Ishihara K, Cubrinovski M. Soil–pile interaction in liquefied deposits
undergoing lateral spreading. In: Maric B et al., editors. Geotechni-
cal hazards. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1998. p. 51–64.
[21] Kawakami T, Suemasa N, Hamada M, Sato H, Takada T, Exper-
imental study on mechanical properties of liquefied sand. In:
Proceedings of the 5th US–Japan workshop on earthquake resistant
design of lifeline facilities and countermeasures against soil liquefac-
tion, vol. 1, Technical Report, NCEER-94-0026, Salt Lake City,
USA; 1994. p. 99–285.
[22] Liu KF, Mei CC. Slow spreading of a sheet of Bingham fluid on an
inclined plane. J Fluid Mech 1989;207:505–29.
[23] Mitsoulis E. On creeping drag flow of a viscoplastic fluid past a
circular cylinder: wall effects. Chem Eng Sci 2004;59:789–800.
[24] Montassar S, Contribution to the numerical simulation of liquefied
ground flow and its effects on structures. PhD thesis (in French),
ENPC, Paris; 2005.
[25] Montassar S, de Buhan P. Minimum principle and related numerical
scheme for simulating initial flow and subsequent propagation of
liquefied ground. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2005;29:1065–86.
[26] Montassar S, de Buhan P. Some general results on the stability and
flow failure of rigid viscoplastic structures. Mech Res Commun
2006;33:63–71.
[27] Murff JD, Wagner DA, Randolph MF. Pipe penetration in cohesive
soil. Géotechnique 1989;39(2):213–29.
[28] Orense RP, Towhatal I. Three dimensional analysis on lateral
displacement of liquefied subsoil. Soils Foundat 1998;38(4):1–15.
[29] Pastor M, Quecedo M, Fernandez Merodo JA, Herreros MI,
Gonzalez E, Mira P. Modelling tailing dams and mine waste dumps
failures. Géotechnique 2002;52(8):579–91.
[30] Randolph MF, Houlsby GT. The limiting pressure on a circular pipe
loaded laterally in cohesive soil. Géotechnique 1984;34(4):613–23.
[31] Roquet N, Saramito P. An adaptive finite element method for
Bingham fluid flows around a cylinder. Comput Meth Appl Mech
Eng 2003;192:3317–41.
[32] Salençon J. An introduction to the yield design theory and its
applications to soil mechanics. Eur J Mech, A/Solids 1990;9(5):
477–500.
[33] Salençon J. Handbook of continuum mechanics. Berlin: Springer;
2000.
[34] Salençon J, Indentation of a cohesive soil by a circular pipe. In:
Proceedings 15th international congress on soil mechanics and
foundation engineering, Istanbul; 2001. p. 1311–4.
[35] Seed HB, Harder J, SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore pressure
generation and undrained residual strength. In: Duncan JM, editor.
Proceedings H. Bolton Seed memorial symposium, vol. 2, University
of California, Berkeley, May 9–11; 1990. p. 351–76.
[36] Taboada V, Dobry R. Centrifuge modelling of earthquake-induced
lateral spreading in sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1998;124(12):
1195–206.
[37] Tamate S, Towhata I. Numerical simulation of ground flow caused by
seismic liquefaction. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 1999;18: 473–85.
[38] Towhata I, Al-Hussaini TM. Lateral loads on offshore structures
exerted by submarine mudflows. Soils Foundat 1988;32:26–34.
[39] Towhata I, Orense RP, Toyota H. Mathematical principles in
prediction of lateral ground displacement induced by seismic lique-
faction. Soils Foundat 1999;39(2):1–19.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Montassar, P. de Buhan / Computers and Geotechnics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx
[40] Towhata I, Sasaki Y, Tokida KI, Matsumoto H, Tamari Y, Yamada
K. Mechanism of permanent displacement of ground caused by
seismic liquefaction. Soils Foundat 1992;32(3):79–96.
[41] Towhata I, Toyota H, Vargas-Monge W, Dynamics in lateral flow of
liquefied ground. In: Proceedings of the 10th Asian regional confer-
ence on SFME, vol. 1, Beijing, 1995. p. 497–500.
[42] Uzuoka R, Yashima A, Kawakami T, Konrad J-M. Fluid dynamics
based prediction of liquefaction induced lateral spreading. Comput
Geotech 1998;32(3–4):243–82.
13
[43] Wilson DW, Boulanger RW, Kutter BL. Observed seismic lateral
resistance of liquefying sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
2000;126(12):898–906.
[44] Yasuda S, Kiku S, Yosida T, Shaking table tests on the friction force
between the buried pipelines and the ground during liquefaction. In:
Proceedings of the 24th national conference JSSMFE (in Japanese);
1989. p. 759–60.
[45] Zisis TH, Mitsoulis E. Viscoplastic flow around a cylinder kept
between parallel plates. J Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech 2002;105:1–20.