Byrne, P.M., Naesgaard, E., and Seid-Karbasi, M., 2006.

“Analysis and design of earth structures to resist seismic soil

liquefaction,” 59th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Canadian Geotechnical Society, Vancouver, B.C., October.

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF EARTH STRUCTURES TO RESIST SEISMIC

SOIL LIQUEFACTION
Peter M. Byrne, Civil Engineering Department, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada
Ernest Naesgaard, Civil Engineering Department, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada
Mahmood Seid-Karbasi, Civil Engineering Department, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada

ABSTRACT
The National Building Code of Canada, 2005 has increased the seismic loading from a 10% chance of exceedance to a
2% chance of exceedance in 50 years event. This has increased the design accelerations by a factor of about 2 in
Greater Vancouver as well as many other areas of Canada. For the design earthquakes scenario the risk of soil
liquefaction and resulting damage to existing building and lifeline structures has greatly increased. This paper examines
liquefaction induced damage to civil engineering structures in past earthquakes as well as the characteristic liquefaction
response observed in laboratory tests. State-of-Practice as well as State-of-Art procedures for analysis and design of
building and structures supported on potentially liquefiable soils are examined. Reliable prediction of seismic
displacements of foundations, and design to limit displacements to prevent collapse of the supported structure is the
challenge. State-of-practice analysis is based on a total stress approach in which it is assumed that the liquefiable soil
will remain undrained at the in situ void ratio. It is further assumed that this is a conservative assumption as drainage
during and after shaking will lead to lower void ratios and stiffer and stronger material. State-of-art coupled stress-flow
effective stress analyses together with field experience and laboratory model tests show that this is an unconservative
assumption in layered materials, and has led to a number of failures. Liquefaction generates excess pore pressures that
drain upwards. If the liquefiable stratum contains silt or clay sub-layers that block the flow, this can result in a temporary
expansion of the sand directly beneath the silt, and lead to a greatly reduced strength resulting in large displacements
or flow slides. These concepts are discussed in relation to developing better analysis and design procedures for
remediation of liquefaction effects.

RÉSUMÉ
Le Code National de Bâtiment de Canada, 2005 a augmenté le chargement sismique d'un événement avec 10% de
chance d’être excédé à un 2% de chances en 50 ans. Ceci a augmenté les accélérations de conception par un facteur
d'environ 2 dans le Grand Vancouver de même que dans beaucoup de secteurs au Canada, et a fortement augmenté le
risque de liquéfaction de sol et les dommages résultants au bâtiment existants et les structures de ligne de sauvetage
en cas du plus haut tremblement de terre de conception. Cet article examine les dommages induits par liquéfaction aux
structures d'ingénierie civile dans les tremblements de terre passés de même que la réponse caractéristique de
liquéfaction observée dans les tests de laboratoire. L’Etat de Pratique de même que des procédures d’Etat d'Art pour
l'analyse et la conception de bâtiment et des structures soutenues sur les sols potentiellement liquéfiables sont
examinées. La prédiction fiable de déplacements sismiques de fondations, et la conception pour limiter des
déplacements pour empêcher l'effondrement de la structure soutenue est le défi. L’analyse d’Etat de Pratique est basée
sur une approche de tension totale dans laquelle il est supposé que le sol liquéfiable restera non drainé au rapport de
vides in situ. On suppose encore que ceci est une prétention conservatrice car drainage pendant et après la secousse
mènera à des rapports de vides plus bas et le matériel sera plus raide et plus fort. Analyses d’Etat d’Art de tension
effectives à écoulement d’effort couplé ensemble avec l'expérience de champ et les tests de modèle de laboratoire
montrent que ceci est une supposition non conservatrice dans des matériaux à couches, et a mené à un nombre de
ruptures. La liquéfaction produit des pressions de pore excessives qui drainent vers l'haut. Si la couche liquéfiable
contient des sous-couches de silts ou argile qui bloquent le flux, ceci peut avoir pour résultat une expansion temporaire
du sable directement en dessous du silt, et mener à une forte réduction de la résistance ayant pour résultat de grands
déplacements ou écoulements de pentes. Ces concepts sont discutés par rapport à mieux développer les procédures
d'analyse et conception pour le redressement des effets de liquéfaction.

1. INTRODUCTION generation of high pore water pressures and large

Earthquakes have caused severe damage to civil
engineering structures, particularly where soil liquefaction
was observed. Liquefaction can occur in granular soils
whose pore spaces are filled with water, and involves
reductions in soil shear stiffness and strength that has led
to very large shear deformations. In addition, the bulk
stiffness of the soil skeleton greatly reduces upon
liquefaction and can result in large post-liquefaction
settlements as pore water pressures dissipate; resulting
in further damage.

The detrimental effects of liquefaction on urban

infrastructures came into prominence during the 1964
Magnitude 7.5 PGA  0.2 g, Niigata earthquake. At
Niigata, liquefaction caused apartment buildings to
overturn, manholes and wood pilings to float out of the
ground, bridge decks to fall off their supports and
roadways and embankments to crack and spread
(Figures 1 and 2). Liquefaction induced damage was
also very severe during the Kobe earthquake of 1995,
M7.1 with PGA  0.5 g. Damage to port facilities was Figure 1. Collapse of building in Niigata earthquake,
particularly severe due to very large lateral displacements Japan, 1964, M=7.5
of the order of 3 m from soil liquefaction (Figures 3 to 7).

Soil liquefaction resulted in major damage in Turkey

during the M7.5 earthquake event with PGA  0.5 g in
1999. Here liquefaction of silty soils (which previously
had been deemed to be resistant to liquefaction) gave
rise to large movements (Figures 8 and 9). Figure 10
shows an attempt to numerically simulate the overturned
building of Figure 9.

Probably the best documented case histories of

liquefaction effects on earth structures are the San
Fernando dams in California, during the earthquake of
1971. The crest of the upper dam moved 1.5 m
downstream, while the lower dam had a flow slide on its Figure 2. Collapse of Showa Bridge in Niigata
upstream side which removed the crest of the dam. The earthquake, Japan, 1964, M=7.5
slide occurred shortly after severe shaking had ceased.
The earthquake was a magnitude, M6.6 event with Peak
Ground Acceleration, PGA = 0.5 g. A plan view of the
San Fernando dams is shown in Figure 11. A view of the
upper dam is shown in Figure 12. The failed section of
the lower dam is shown in Figures 13 and the failure
mode is depicted in Figure 14.

The flow failure of the upstream slope of the Lower San

Fernando dam was not expected at the time and resulted
in a detailed study of the dam and the possible causes of
the failure. The sands present at the site had relative
densities of about 55%, and laboratory testing carried out
on undisturbed samples after the failure showed high
shear strengths, more than sufficient to prevent a flow Figure 3. Large lateral spreads damaged many port
slide. It was argued at the time that minor disturbance structures in Kobe 1995 earthquake
caused compaction of the samples and led to the high
measured strength. Recent research suggests that
localized expansion of the sand layers occurred after
shaking due to redistribution of water associated with
generated excess pore pressures. The expansion of the
sand in turn caused its strength to drop and accounts for
the failure. This hypothesis is supported by the
observations that the slide occurred some time after the
end of strong shaking; allowing time for redistribution of
water and related expansion to take place. The
expanded zones are very localized and difficult to detect.
In addition, upon dissipation of excess pore pressure the
expanded zones will compact. During the failure process
the fine and coarse layers of the hydraulically placed dam
also mixed. This mixing further reduces the strength of Figure 4. Bridge collapse due to foundation lateral
the liquefied soils (Byrne, 1989; Baziar and Dobry, 1995; spreading in Kobe 1995 earthquake
and Naesgaard and Byrne, 2005).
Figure 5. Bridge span collapse due to foundation Figure 8. Subsidence and lateral spreads in 1999 Turkey
spreading in 1995 Kobe earthquake. earthquake.

Figure 6. Damaged port facilities due to foundation failure Figure 9. Building over-turning collapse due to foundation
in 1995 Kobe earthquake. failure, Turkey 1999 earthquake.

Figure 7. Soil movements at bridge foundation, 1995 Figure 10. Model of building over-turning collapse, Turkey
Kobe earthquake. (Photos in Fig. 1 to 7 from 1999 earthquake.
http://cee.uiuc.edu/sstl/education/liquefaction)
 Upper San
Fernando Dam
Lower San
Fernando Dam
Figure 11. Aerial view of San Fernando dams.
Figure 12. Upper San Fernando dam after 1971
earthquake.
Damage to earth structures from seismic liquefaction
arises from soil movements and can be categorized as
follows:
a) Flow slides and bearing failures with very large
movements that occur during or after shaking when
the post-liquefaction strength drops below the static
driving shear stress.
b) Lateral Spreads & shear Induced foundation
displacements that occur intermittently (and
progressively increase) during earthquake shaking
when the combined static and inertial driving forces
exceed the soil strength. However the strength is
greater than the static driving shear stress and
movements stop when shaking ceases.
c) Post-liquefaction settlements due to
consolidation arise from dissipation of excess pore
water pressures associated with liquefaction. High
excess pore pressure and liquefaction disrupt the soil
fabric making it much more compressible. This has
two effects: 1) it reduces the coefficient of
consolidation and thus slows down the rate of
dissipation of excess porewater pressure after
liquefaction, and 2) it greatly increases the amount of
settlement arising from dissipation of excess
porewater pressure. This settlement is in addition to
shear induced settlements.
Figure 13. Failure of Lower San Fernando dam due to
liquefaction in 1971 earthquake.
Figure 14. Rebuilt model of Lower San Fernando dam
Failure mode (Seed et al., 1973).
The seismic loading that buildings and structures are
required to withstand in Canada are prescribed by the
National Building Code of Canada, NBCC. Over the past
30 years, the seismic loading has increased dramatically
from a 100 year event, to a 475 year event (10% chance
of exceedance in 50 years), to a 2475 year event (2%
chance of exceedance in 50 years) in NBCC 2005. In
Greater Vancouver, the design peak ground acceleration,
PGA has gone from about 0.10 g to 0.46 g in that 30 year
period, a factor in excess of 4. Many older buildings had
built-in structural “over-strength”, so that if located on firm
ground the buildings may still be adequate under the
increased seismic loading of the new building code.
However, older buildings located on liquefiable soils are
not likely to meet the new code requirements as
liquefaction potential is directly related to acceleration
level, and if the new code earthquake were to occur
could be severely damaged. Foundations for new
buildings will require a higher level of treatment to prevent
liquefaction occurrence, and/or curtail resulting
displacements under NBCC, 2005. The increased
seismic design levels in the building code make it
important that we fully understand the liquefaction
phenomenon and develop new and improved analysis
procedures for predicting liquefaction response. Such
analyses if verified against case histories will allow a
reliable assessment of liquefaction response.
This presentation will focus on understanding the
liquefaction response, and discuss analysis procedures
that allow rational design of foundation treatment to
reduce displacements to tolerable levels.
2. SOIL RESPONSE TO SEISMIC LOADING
An earthquake applies time histories of acceleration at
the base of a soil structure as shown in Figure 15. The
horizontal accelerations induce oscillating horizontal
dynamic shear stresses, xy as shown in Figure 15b. The
effects of such cyclic shear stresses on soil behaviour
can be assessed by applying them to elements of the soil
under simple shear conditions and observing the
response.
Such tests show that cyclic loading causes a granular soil
to contract. If contraction is prevented or curtailed by the
presence of a low compressibility fluid such as water in
the pores that cannot escape, it induces excess pore
pressure and a consequent reduction in stiffness and
strength. If the excess pore pressure rises to reduce the
effective stress to zero, the soil has essentially zero
stiffness and strength and is said to have liquefied.
However, unless it is very loose, the soil dilates as it is
loaded causing the pore pressure to drop, and the soil
regains strength and stiffness. Since seismic loading
occurs rapidly there is generally little time for drainage to
occur, and testing to simulate field conditions is generally
carried out under undrained or constant volume
conditions.
xy
´0
xy
(a) Earthquake motion
Acc.
Figure 15. Cyclic shear stress induced by base acceleration in an earth fill Embankment.
In practice, for testing purposes, the random oscillating
seismic stresses, τxy, are replaced with an equivalent
uniform cyclic stress cyc. In addition, it has been found
that liquefaction depends largely on Cyclic Stress Ratio,
CSR = cyc/'vo, where 'vo is the initial vertical effective
stress prior to the earthquake, and cyc is an equivalent
uniform cyclic stress often set equal to 0.65 x max where
max is the peak horizontal dynamic shear stress from the
earthquake.
Cyclic simple shear loading is depicted in Figure 16a.
Typical shear stress-strain results for loose Fraser River
sand tested in undrained (constant volume) conditions
are shown Figure 16b, and stress path response in terms
of shear stress vs. normal effective stress is shown in
Figure 16c. From Figure 16b, it may be seen that the
shear stress-strain response is stiff for a number of cycles
in the pre-liquefaction stage, with shear strain less than
0.2%, followed by an abrupt change to a post liquefaction
stage with very much softer response and strains of 10%.
The stress path followed is shown in Figure 16c where it
may be seen that starting from an initial vertical effective
stress of 100 kPa, the effective normal stress drops with
each cycle until the phase transformational line, or
constant volume friction angle cv  33 is reached after 6
cycles. Once this has occurred, loading and unloading
takes place close to the cv line, with loading involving an
increase in effective stress and unloading involving a
decrease in effective stress. This is illustrated in more
detail in Figure 17 where it may be seen that prior to
liquefaction the stress path is below the cv line and
Time
(b)
Time
 ´0

cyc
(a)

cyc
30
30
Point of =3.75% 'vc=100kPa; Drc=40%
Point of =3.75% 'vc=100kPa; Drc=40%
(i.e. Assumed triggering point
(i.e. Assumed triggering cyc/'vc=0.10; st/'vc =0.0 cyc/'vc=0.10; st/'vc =0.0
20 20 of liquefaction)
point of liquefaction for
comparison purposes)

Shear Stress, t (kPa)

Shear Stress, t (kPa)

10 10

0 0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 0 25 50 75 100 125

-10 -10

-20 -20
(c) Vertical Effective Stress, 'v (kPa)
(b)
-30 -30

Shear Strain,  (%)

Figure 16. (a) cyclic simple shear loading, (b) shear stress-strain response, and (c) effective stress path (tests
data from Sriskandakumar, 2004).

f

pt = cv

´

pt = cv

Figure 17. Effective stress path following liquefaction.

contraction occurs upon cyclic loading. Once the cv line number 15 derives from a magnitude, M7.5 earthquakes
is reached, further loading causes dilation as the stress which causes about 15 equivalent cycles. If the design
point moves up just above the cv line. Upon unloading, earthquake is different than M7.5 then corrections for the
the stress point drops slightly below the cv line and the appropriate number of cycles are made.
soil contracts, driving the stress point back to the origin or
zero effective stress (liquefied) state. Upon reloading the In practice, elements in the soil structure will likely have a
soil dilates, moving up just above the cv line gaining static bias that will cause shear strain to accumulate in
strength (de-liquefies). In subsequent unloading and the direction of the bias as shown in Figure 19. In this
reloading cycles, the pattern repeats itself. Note that case the bias was sufficient to prevent a change in sign of
although the soil liquefies during cyclic loading, it the shear stress (no crossover), large strains can
maintains its critical state strength at large strain. The accumulate once the stress point reaches the cv line and
post-liquefaction strength and stiffness depends very the stress point essentially moves up and down the  line
much on its density. Higher densities will have much as loading and unloading occurs.
higher post liquefaction stiffness and critical state
strengths. The cyclic stress-strain response of dense sand, Dr =
80% is shown in Figure 20. it may be seen that there is a
The test results shown above are for an applied CSR = gradual accumulation of shear strain with number of
0.1, and triggered liquefaction in 6 cycles. If a higher CSR cycles leading to a gradual decay in stiffness with no loss
is applied the test element liquefies in less cycles, and if a in strength. The strain increase is less than 0.02% on the
lower CSR is applied it takes more cycles to liquefy as first cycles, and 10% after about 20 cycles.
shown in Figure 18 in terms of CSR versus number of
cycles to liquefaction. The CSR, that causes liquefaction The cyclic response of a soft low plasticity silt is shown in
in 15 cycles, is commonly taken as a reference and is Figure 21. It may be seen that the shear strain increases
referred to as the cyclic resistance ratio, CRR. For the gradually with strain and there is no abrupt change in
(dry pluviated) loose Fraser sand tested CRR= 0.09. The shear strain. The soft silt behaviour is similar to that of

0.2 60
'vc=100kPa; Drc=80%
cyc/'vc=0.30; st/'vc =0.0
40
0.15
Shear Stress, t (kPa)

20
CSR

0.1
0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
0.05 -20

Point of =3.75% (i.e. Assumed

-40 triggering point of liquefaction)
0
0 5 10 15 20
No of Cycles -60

Shear Strain, (%)

Figure 18. CSR vs. No. of cycles for Fraser river Figure 20. Stress-strain response for dense Fraser River
sand, DR =40% and ’c = 100 kPa (tests data sand, Dr= 80% (Sriskandakumar, 2004).
from Sriskandakumar, 2004).

OCR = 1.0 20
30 CSR = 0.20
'vc=100kPa; Drc=40%
ec = 0.884
Shear Stress, t (kPa)

cyc/'vc=0.065; st/'vc =0.1

20
W = 36.2% 10
Shear Stress, t (kPa)

10
0
0 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
-10 -10
Point of =3.75%
(i.e. Assumed triggering
-20 point of liquefaction)
-20
-30
Shear Strain, (%) Shear Strain,  (%)

Figure 19. Stress-strain response for Fraser River

sand with shear stress bias (Sriskandakumar, Figure 21. Stress-strain response of low plasticity Fraser
2004). River silt (Wijewickreme and Sanin, 2005).
dense sand in that it has a gradual increase in strain with
each cycle of stress rather than an abrupt increase as for
a loose sand.
A great deal of high quality cyclic loading data for sandy
soils is available and indicate the characteristic behaviour
shown above. The CRR and post-liquefaction stiffness
and strength increase with density, and the post-
liquefaction strength conforms with critical state concepts.
earthquakes. Cone, Standard penetration, or Becker
penetration tests are commonly used with corrections for
the magnitude of the design earthquake, stress level,
and, static shear stress or bias. The CRR at any location
can be expressed as:
CRR = CRR1 * Km * Kσ * Kα [1]

Back analysis of field data gives post-liquefaction
strengths that are significantly lower than the critical state
strength determined from laboratory tests on undisturbed
samples tested at the in situ state. The reason for this
apparent difference is related to expansion of the soil
skeleton associated with redistribution of water during
and after shaking ,and will be discussed in detail in a
later section of this paper.
3. STANDARD PRACTICE FOR LIQUEFACTION
ASSESSMENT
In dealing with liquefaction, three aspects arise:
a) Will the design earthquake trigger liquefaction in
significant zones of the foundation or earth structure,
and if so,
b) Will the post-liquefaction strength be adequate to
preserve stability and prevent a flow slide in the
absence of inertia forces, and if so,
c) Will the displacements be tolerable?
The standard practice approach uses three separate
analyses to respond to the three aspects; a triggering
analysis, a flow slide analysis, and a displacement
analysis.
where CRR1 is obtained from the NCEER, 1997 workshop
chart (Youd et al., 2001) shown in Figure 22, and Km, Kσ,
Kα, are corrections for earthquake magnitude, effective
overburden pressure, and static bias respectively. These
are addressed in Youd et al., 2001.
3.2 Flow Slide Assessment
The factor of safety against a flow slide, Fflow is computed
from standard limit equilibrium analysis procedures using
a post-liquefaction strength in those zones predicted to
liquefy from the triggering analysis. Post-liquefaction
strengths are based on field experience during past
earthquakes and are significantly lower than values
obtained from direct testing of undisturbed samples at in
situ void ratios. Post liquefaction strength may be
expressed directly in terms of penetration resistance, Su
as suggested by Seed and Harder (1990) and shown in
Figure 23, or as a strength ratio Su/ /'vo as shown in
Figure 24 (Olson and Stark, 2002). It may be seen that
the values of strength ratio are low, in the range 0.03 to
0.13. Computed factors of safety, Fflow > 1.2 to 1.25 are
generally considered satisfactory (Byrne et. al., 1994).

3.1 Triggering Analysis

A triggering analysis involves comparing the cyclic stress

ratio (CSR) caused by the design earthquake with the
cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) that the soil has because of
its density. The result is expressed in terms of a factor of
safety against triggering liquefaction, Ftrig = CRR/CSR.
Ftrig in the range 1 to 1.4 are generally considered
acceptable and assure that seismic displacements will be
small and tolerable (Byrne and Anderson, 1991, Youd et
al., 2001).

The CSR is normally computed from an equivalent elastic

dynamic analysis such as SHAKE using strain compatible
moduli and damping , where CSR = 0.65 x max/'vo , and
max is the maximum computed dynamic stress at a
specific location during the design earthquake. CSR may
also be computed from a simplified formula based on
SHAKE analyses, but this approach is not recommended
as the values are very sensitive to the specific site
characteristics and the frequency content of the design
earthquake.
Figure 22. MCEER Recommended chart for CRR
CRR is generally computed indirectly from penetration evaluation based on (N1)60 (Youd et al., 2001).
resistance values and field experience during past

Figure 23. Residual strength for liquefied sand vs. (N1)60
(Seed and Harder, 1990).
Figure 24. Normalized residual strength for liquefied sand
vs. (N1)60 (Olson and Stark, 2002).
3.3 Seismic Displacements
Seismic displacements that arise during shaking are
commonly based on Newmark (1965) who modelled a
potential sliding block of soil as a rigid mass resting on an
inclined plane as shown in Figure 25. The acceleration
that would just cause yielding and movement down the
plane is called the yield acceleration (ay) in gravity units ,
and corresponds to the seismic coefficient, k, that would
reduce the factor of safety to unity. This is readily
obtained from limit equilibrium analyses described in
Section 3.2 and can take the reduced strength associated
with liquefaction into account.
Newmark modelled the mass on the inclined plane as a
single-degree-of-freedom rigid plastic system, applied the
design time history of acceleration at the base and solved
the equation of motion to obtain the displacement of the
mass caused by the shaking. Basically yielding at the
(a)

Time (s)
(b)
Time (s)
(c)
Time (s)
(d)
Figure 25. Newmark-rigid block model of seismic slope
motion (Modified from Day, 2002).
base and displacement down the plane is instigated each
time the base acceleration exceeds the yield acceleration
and causes the block to move in discontinuous steps
during the period of strong shaking as shown in Figure
25. Note that even the peak acceleration may only induce
a small displacement as it lasts for only a fraction of a
second. Peak accelerations greater than the yield
acceleration imply an instantaneous factor of safety less
than unity. This does not imply failure, but some limited
displacement that can be calculated from the equation of
motion and the prescribed earthquake motion. The
standard practice approach of the past evaluated
dynamic stability based on factor of safety and a seismic
coefficient. This past procedure is generally not
appropriate and should be replaced by a displacement
approach such as the simple one proposed by Newmark.
Seismic displacements associated with liquefaction can
also be estimated from empirical equations such as Youd
et al. (2002). These equations are based on field
observations during many past earthquakes and can be a
useful guide for existing conditions, but are of limited use
for design of remedial measures.
Seismic displacements also occur due to dissipation of
excess pore pressure. Since the earthquake loading is
rapid, occurring in a matter of 10 to 100 seconds, it is
generally assumed that these occur after earthquake
shaking has ceased and are essentially vertical. A chart
for estimating vertical strains associated with post
liquefaction consolidation is shown in Figure 26 and
indicates that strains could vary between about 0.5% and
5% depending on pre-earthquake relative density.
Figure 26. Relationships for volumetric reconsolidation
strain as a function of equivalent uniform cyclic stress
ratio, (N1)60-CS for Mw = 7.5 (Wu 2002).
The state-of-practice liquefaction procedures have a
number of shortcomings: The three aspects of
liquefaction; triggering, flow slide, and displacements are
addressed in three separate analyses. In fact they are
part of a single liquefaction response in which pore
pressure rise and liquefaction occur at different rates and
times in various zones of the earth structure causing the
response of the structure to change as it softens.
Redistribution of excess pore pressure may create more
severe conditions, and finally dissipation and
reconsolidation occurs as the soil regains its strength. No
direct account of these aspects is considered in state-of
practice procedures, and in particular no direct account of
pore pressure rise and redistribution effects on response
is considered. These shortcomings can lead to predicted
response that is not realistic, and remedial designs that
can be overly conservative, or unsafe depending on site
conditions.
These aspects will be examined in state-of-art
liquefaction analyses.
4. STATE-OF-ART TOTAL STRESS DYNAMIC
ANALYSIS
This procedure addresses the liquefaction response
taking pre-triggering, triggering, and post-triggering
aspects into account in a single analysis that more
closely simulates conditions in the field. The earth
structure of concern is modelled as a collection of
discrete zones or elements. In the early stages of the
analyses stiff moduli representing pre-triggering
conditions are specified. The stress pulses in each zone
are computed with time as they occur and are weighted
depending on the size of the pulse as compared to the
reference pulse that would cause liquefaction in 15
cycles. So a small pulse may account for a half cycle or
less, whereas a large pulse may count for 2 or 3 cycles or
more. When or if the cycle count reaches 15 in any
element, it is deemed to have liquefied and given much
reduced strength and stiffness properties consistent with
post liquefaction response. In this way, the most severely
loaded or looser zones will liquefy first and the extent of
liquefaction will expand with further shaking as observed
in centrifuge model tests. If sufficient elements liquefy
and their residual strength is not adequate for stability,
then a flow slide is predicted.
The procedure makes use of both state-of-practice
triggering and residual strength charts and, thus is a
logical extension of the current state-of-practice approach
discussed in Section 3. The method is described in detail
in Beaty and Byrne (1999), and Beaty (2001). An example
of predicted displacement from such a liquefaction
analysis is shown in Figure 27. Note that excess pore
pressures are not computed in this approach. They are
indirectly accounted for by prescribing much softer post-
liquefaction stress-strain relations and residual strength
values after liquefaction has been triggered.
5. STATE-OF-ART EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSES,
FINN LOOSE COUPLED MODEL
The strength and stiffness of soil is governed by effective
stress, and so it is desirable to evaluate seismic response
of soil in terms of effective stresses. Pore pressure rise
and liquefaction are caused by the tendency of soil to
contract when subjected to cyclic shear loading. Martin et
al. (1975) presented a 4 parameter shear-volume
coupling model for predicting the increment of volumetric
compaction per load cycle, dεpv. Their data showed that
p
dε v depended on both the level of shear strain in the
current cycle as well as the accumulated volumetric strain
from prior cycles, but was independent of effective stress
level. The associated rise in pore pressure for saturated
p
undrained conditions is du = dε v * Ke, where Ke is the
elastic bulk modulus of the soil. Based on this concept
Martin et al. developed the first dynamic effective stress
model in which shear strains were evaluated in each
element allowing the pore pressure rise at the end of
each shear cycle to be computed. The total rise in pore
pressure for undrained conditions is simply the sum of the
pore pressure increments. The strength and moduli are
reduced in each element in accordance with the drop in
effective stress as pore pressure rise occurs. Dissipation
of excess pore pressure can also be accounted for by
allowing flow between elements. This approach is
commonly referred to as the Finn model and was used in
the TARA program (Finn et al., 1986).
Figure 27. (a) finite difference mesh of the Lower San Fernando Dam, (b) Predicted distorted mesh and displacement
vectors of 1971 liquefaction-induced upstream slope failure (Beaty and Byrne, 1999).

Later versions of the TARA program (TARA 3F, Finn et

al., 1995) and the FLAC Finn model are based on a
Failure (Plastic)


simpler two parameter shear volume coupling model by

p p
Byrne (1991), dε v = γ * C1 * Exp(-C2 *ε v/γ) where γ is the
p
shear strain in the current cycle , ε v is the accumulated
volumetric strain from prior cycles, and C1 and C2 are soil
parameters that depend on relative density. This
procedure is referred to as a loose coupled approach
because the pore pressure is updated at the end of each Elastic zone
cycle or half cycle of shear strain rather than at every time
step.

The Finn model can adequately capture the pore ’

pressure rise up to the point of triggering of liquefaction
for level ground conditions, but cannot simulate the post-
liquefaction response where dilation and pore pressure
drop occurs during each load cycle as depicted in Section
2. TARA 3F handles post-liquefaction conditions by
switching to a total stress approach and specifying a
residual strength as discussed in Section 3 and a nominal
shear stiffness.
6. STATE-OF-ART EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSES,
FULLY COUPLED
A number of fully coupled effective stress models exist for
predicting seismic response and liquefaction including
DYNAFLOW (Prevost, 1985) and UBCSAND (Byrne et al.
1995, Puebla et al., 1997; Beaty & Byrne, 1999, Byrne et
al., 2004). Such models are based on plasticity concepts,
and shear-volume coupling effects are computed at each
time step rather than at the completion of each half cycle
of strain. Computer programs such as FLAC (Itasca,
2005) have dynamic and flow capabilities and a range of
Figure 28. Elastic and plastic zones in Mohr-Coulomb
model.
soil models. However, because the cyclic response of
granular soil is complex, most soil models are either too
complex and have too many parameters, or are too
simple and do not allow predictions that are in reasonable
agreement with laboratory tests.
UBCSAND is a modified form of the built-in Mohr model in
FLAC. The Mohr model has basically 2 elastic
parameters that specify shear and bulk moduli, and 3
plastic parameters, that specify friction, cohesion, and
dilation angle. The model is elastic when the stress state
is below the strength envelope, and plastic when the
stress point is on the failure envelope as shown in Figure
28. The plasticity model used assures that the stress
point does not exceed the strength envelope.
The UBCSAND modification to the Mohr model involves
allowing plastic yielding below the strength envelope. In

 , d p
shear stress versus normal stress space, the yield loci Plastic strain vector Фd > Фcv
are radial lines from the origin of stress space, and the
directions of the plastic strains are as shown on Figure 29
when shear and normal strains are superposed upon the Yield locus Фd = Фcv
stress space.

It may be seen from Figure 29 that for a stress point Фd < Фcv
below the constant volume friction angle (phase
transformation), the plastic vector is directed to the right
indicating contraction, while at phase transformation state
the vector is vertical indicating no plastic volume change,
above the phase transformation line the vector is directed Figure 29. Moving yield loci and plastic strain increment
to the left indicating expansion. This plastic shear-volume vectors.
effect is taking place at all loading stages, and is given by
the simple expression:

p
dε v = dγ * (Sin(cv) – Sin(d)) [2] Dense

Shear Stress, 
where d is the friction angle developed at any stage of
loading and varies between 0 and f, the peak friction
angle.
Loose
For Fraser River sand the constant volume friction angle,
cv is 33 degrees and all other parameters are related to
relative density or Standard Penetration value, (N1)60.

Characteristic monotonic stress strain undrained Shear Strain, 

response is shown in Figure 30 for very loose and dense
sand. The UBCSAND model will capture this response. Dense
Note that the very loose sand strain softens and the
Excess Pore Pressure, u

model, predicts this behaviour with no need for any

external load shedding device.

The results of cyclic simple shear constant volume tests

are shown in Figure 31 together with predictions from Shear Strain, 
UBCSAND. It may be seen that the predictions are in
reasonable agreement with the measurements. Additional
tests having a range of applied CSR values were also Loose
predicted, and a comparison of predicted and measured
liquefaction resistance is shown in Figure 31c. Note that
the model captures the stiff pre-liquefaction stage, the
onset of liquefaction at the appropriate number of cycles,
and the very much softer post-liquefaction response. Note
also that the post-liquefaction resistance at large strain is
cv
Shear Stress, 

high and there is no indication of a low strength ratio Dense

corresponding to the back calculated values from field
case histories.

6.1 Analysis of Level and Sloping Ground Conditions

An effective stress analysis of a 10m high sand column Loose

resting on a rigid base with and without a non-liquefiable
silt layer located at a depth of 4m was examined (Figure
32). The column represents an infinite slope with a one
degree ground slope. An idealized harmonic acceleration
motion was applied at the base (Figure 33) and time
Normal Stress, ’
Figure 30. Characteristic response of sand to undrained
loading in terms of (a) stress-strain, (b) excess pore
pressure, and (c) effective stress path.
 20
TEST DATA
10

Stre ss (kPa)
0

-10
PREDICTION
-20
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Strain (%)
1
RU = 0.95
0.8
TEST DATA
0.6

Ru
0.4

0.2
PREDICTION
0
0 2 4 6 8
No. of C ycl e s
0.2
TEST DATA
0.15
CSR

0.1

0.05
PREDICTION
0
0 5 10 15 20
No. of C ycle s
Figure 31. Comparison of predicted and measured response for Fraser River Sand, a) stress-strain, b) & c) Ru &
CSR vs. No. of cycles ( tests data from Sriskandakumar, 2004).

(a) case I (b) case II

Groundwater table
10

9
Sand
8

7
Barrier
6

5
Element:
(1,13)
4 (1,10)
(1,5)
3 (1,3)

-1
Firm impervious ground -1 0 1 2 3 4

Figure 32. Ground conditions used in the study, (a) case I, uniform profile without low permeability sub-layer, (b) case
II, profile with low permeability sub-layer (Seid-Karbasi and Byrne, 2006).
histories of excess pore pressure ratio (Ru) at various
depths were predicted (Figure 34).
It may be seen that for conditions; (a) without, and (b)
with the silt layer the peak excess pore pressure Ru is
close to unity (zero effective stress state) during most of
the shaking and then drops with time as excess pore
pressures dissipate. However, at the upper location just
below the silt layer (location (1,13) in Figure 32) the Ru
values are higher for (b), with the silt layer, and remain
significantly higher for some time after shaking has
stopped. This effect is caused by the presence of the silt
layer. The excess pore pressure generated by the motion
must drain upward. The silt layer acts as a barrier and
curtails the upward flow causing expansion and
accumulation of water beneath the silt.
In Figure 35 it may be seen that very high shear
deformations are predicted directly beneath the silt layer
where the Ru values were highest. The predicted
maximum surface displacements are significantly higher
with the presence of the silt layer (Figure 36). Note that
displacements continue for some time after the shaking
has ceased when the silt layer is present.
The predicted change in volumetric strains as a function
of depth after 30 s are presented in Figure 37. It shows
that the bottom 2/3 of the sand layer beneath the barrier
contracts, while the top 1/3 expands, and that most of the
expansion occurs directly beneath the barrier leading to a
thin localized zone of high shear strain or a shear band.
The coupled stress-flow effective stress analysis indicates
that layered sand deposits likely do not remain undrained
during seismic loading and that expansion during and
after shaking can occur leading to significantly lower
stiffness and strength in thin zones directly beneath silt or
clay layers of low permeability (Seid-Karbasi and Byrne,
2004; Naesgaard et al., 2005; and Seid-Karbasi, 2006).
Without a silt layer, no significant expansion and no strain
localization occurred.
Shaking tests conducted by Kokusho (1999) & (2003),
show that the presence of a silt layer results in expansion
and the formation of a water film at the base of the silt
layer, and a flow failure some time after shaking has
ceased, while uniform sand (without a silt layer) is stable
during and after simulated seismic loading. This is
demonstrated in cartoon form in Figure 38. Centrifuge
tests conducted at The University of California, Davis with
a thin silt layer within a sand model also show localization
directly beneath the silt layer and the formation of a
water-rich zone under simulated seismic loading,
(Kulasingam, 2003; Malvick, 2005; and Malvick et al.,
2005). Centrifuge tests at C-CORE in Newfoundland with
simulated seismic loading also showed little slope
movement for sand slope models without a silt barrier
layer, however the presence of a silt barrier layer in a
similar model resulted in a post-shaking flow failure
(Phillips et al., 2004; Phillips and Coulter, 2005; and
Naesgaard et al., 2005).
Harmonic Motion
3
2
Acceleration (m/s^2)
1
0
-1
-2
-3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Tim e (s )
Figure 33. Acceleration time history for base input motion.
Further analyses predict that in layered deposits the
pattern of contraction at the base of sand layers and
expansion at the top occurs regardless of the thickness of
the individual sand layers. This means that sand
elements just below the barrier are being subjected to
inflow causing them to expand regardless of the thickness
of individual sand layers. Such expansion can greatly
soften their response (Seid-Karbasi, 2006).
The results of monotonically loaded triaxial tests in which
water is injected into the sample (inflow tests) are
compared with results of conventional undrained tests in
Figure 39a, b and c (Eliadorani, 2000). The principal
stress difference versus axial strain is shown in (a) and
indicates that a small amount of inflow causes a dramatic
reduction in stress difference. The amount of inflow with
axial strain is shown in (b) and indicates that a 1 or 2 %
inflow or expansion strain can reduce the resistance to
essentially zero. The stress paths are compared in (c)
and indicate that 1 to 2% inflow can drive the sample to
the zero effective stress state with zero shear resistance.
The predicted responses for both undrained and inflow
conditions from the UBCSAND model are also shown on
Figure 39 as the continuous lines, and are in remarkably
good agreement with the measured data. The inflow tests
were predicted using the same soil parameters as for the
undrained case but with specified volumetric expansion
conforming to the laboratory test as per Figure 39b. This
indicates that the model can account for the effect of
inflow. The numerical model simulations together with
physical model tests in which a water film is observed to
form at the base of barrier layers during or after shaking
indicates that flow of water and expansion at the base of
barrier sub layers within sand deposits is real and should
be considered in liquefaction assessment.
The concept that the appropriate liquefaction response of
sand can be determined from recovery and testing of
undisturbed samples at the in situ void ratio is flawed for
layered material in which a large contrast in permeability
exists. The triggering resistance most likely can be
obtained from such tests as there may be little time for
drainage effects during the short period of strong shaking.
However, the post-liquefaction response in field
 (a) (b)
1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
Ru

Ru
0.4 0.4
(1,13) (1,13)
0.2 0.2

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (s) Time (s)
1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
Ru

Ru
0.4 0.4
(1,10) (1,10)
0.2 0.2

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (s) Time (s)
1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
Ru
Ru

0.4 0.4
(1,3) (1,3)
0.2 0.2

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 34. Excess pore pressure ratio Ru vs. time at selected points with increasing depth, (a) case I, (b) case II
(Seid-Karbasi and Byrne, 2006).
 (m) (m)
10 10
(a) (b)
9 9

8 8

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0

-1 -1
-1 0 1 2 3 4 (m) -1 0 1 2 3 4 (m)

Figure 35. Deformation pattern of soil profile (a) without barrier, case I (with max. lateral displacement of 0.95
m after 14 s), (b) with barrier, case II, with max. lateral displacement of 1.75 m after 30 s (Seid-Karbasi and
Byrne, 2006).

Barrier Base
4

2
5
With Barrier
1.5
No Barrier
X-dis (m)

6
1 Contraction Expansion
Depth (m)

0.5 End of shaking 7

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 8
Time (s)
Figure 36. Surface lateral displacement vs. time for
profiles with and without barrier (Seid-Karbasi and 9
Byrne, 2006).

10
-0.5 0 0.5 1
Volumetric strain (%)

Figure 37. Profile of volumetric strain beneath the barrier

layer, after 30s (Seid-Karbasi and Byrne, 2006).
Figure 38. Post shaking slope failure due to pore pressure redistribution (adapted from Kokusho, 1998).

Figure 39. Predictions of element undrained and partially drained triaxial test on Fraser River sand, (a)
stress–strain, (b) volumetric strains, and (c) stress paths (from Atigh and Byrne 2004).
conditions will not be at constant volume, as flow of water
into thin zones beneath low permeability silt or clay layers k (m/s)
cause expansion and perhaps a water film to occur and 8.81 e-7
result in a marked reduction in strength and stiffness. 8.81 e-4
This explains why back calculated strengths from field 8.81 e-2
case histories are significantly lower than undrained
strengths from undisturbed samples. Strengths obtained
from undisturbed samples of sand at the Lower San
Fernando dam required a reduction factor of 20 (Castro et
al., 1989) to bring them into agreement with back
calculated values from the flow failure that occurred on Vertical drain
the upstream face of dam. In addition, time for
redistribution of generated excess pore water pressure
and expansion to occur can explains why a number of
field case histories, including the Lower San Fernando
dam, failed some time after severe shaking (Seid-Karbasi
and Byrne, 2004).

The lower than expected back calculated strengths from

case histories do not imply that critical state principles do
not apply to liquefaction induced flow slides. In fact it
explains why greatly reduced strengths can occur. The (a)
sand element has expanded to a higher void ratio and
hence a lower critical state strength. In the limit, the sand
skeleton can only expand to its maximum void ratio at
critical state. Further inflow cannot be absorbed by the
element and will appear as a water film.

6.2 Drainage Effects

Ru(max)
0.65
The effect of drains on liquefaction response is examined
0.70
in Figure 40 for a sand stratum containing a silt barrier 0.75
layer and an infinite slope having a gently sloping ground 0.80
condition of 1 degree. The drain is represented by a 0.85
single column of loose material with a coefficient of 0.90
permeability 100 times that of the sand (see Figure 40a). 0.95
The same ground motion was applied at the base as 1.00
before. Contours of Ru values as well as flow vectors after
3.5 s of shaking are shown in Figure 40b. The results
show that water flows horizontally into the drain and then
up and out, and predicted Ru values are much lower than
without the drain. The highest predicted Ru values occur
beneath the left edge of the barrier as expected.
Predicted Ru values with time are compared with and
without the drain for the three cases in Figure 41.
Predicted displacements with the drains were small.

A field experiment in which seismic shaking was

simulated for conditions with and without drains is shown
in Figure 42 and confirms that drains can be effective in (b)
reducing excess pore pressures. Centrifuge tests at C-
CORE also confirmed the beneficial effects of drains in
preventing flow failure (Phillips et al., 2004; Phillips, R.,
and Coulter, 2005; and Naesgaard et al., 2005). A post- Figure 40. Treated ground condition, (a) model with
shaking flow failure was generated in a model with a silt drain curtain (b) Ru (max) and flow vectors at 3.5s (Seid-
barrier; however flow failure did not occur in a subsequent Karbasi and Byrne, 2006).
similar model in which the barrier was perforated with
drains (Figure 43).
 120
1
Uniform 100
0.8
80
0.6 Test without drain
60
Ru

Test with drain

Ru (%)
0.4 40

0.2 20

(a) 0 0
0 5 10 15 20
-20
Time (s)
0 1 2 3 4
1 Time (sec)

0.8 Figure 42. Measured Ru in field liquefaction test for

case (a) without drain and, (b) with drain (data from
0.6 Chang et al. 2004).
Ru

0.4
w ith Barrier
0.2
(b)
0
0 5 10 15 20
Time (s)
1
With Drain
0.8

0.6
Ru

0.4

0.2
(c)
0
0 5 10 15 20
Time (s)

Figure 41. Predicted time history of Ru at mid depth of

loose sand for soil profile (a) without barrier layer, (b)
with barrier layer and, (c) with barrier layer treated with
drain curtain (Seid-Karbasi, 2006).

Figure 43 (a) Initial and displaced profile of centrifuge test

CT5 with three drainage slots (b) numerical analysis of
same, and (c) comparison of vertical displacement near
crest with (CT5) and without (COSTA-C) drainage slots.
Post-shaking flow initiated in the COSTA-C test at
approximately 70s.
 6.3 Back-Analysis of Lower San Fernando Dam
Failure
In 1971 the Lower San Fernando Dam was shaken by a
large earthquake with a peak velocity pulse of around
0.6m/s and peak ground acceleration of approximately
0.5 g (Seed, 1973; Seed et al., 1989; Castro et al., 1989,
Castro, 1995). Approximately 20 to 30 s after the end of
earthquake shaking the upstream face of the dam
catastrophically failed leaving only 1.5m of free-board and
putting a large population at risk (Figures 11, 12, 13).
Extensive investigation and analyses of the dam were
conducted following the event. From the studies it was
concluded that the hydraulic fill soil within lower and
central portions of the dam had liquefied and overlying
portions of the dam had flowed out riding on the liquefied
soil (Figure 14).
Numerous back-analyses of the dam have been
conducted (Seed et al., 1973, Seed and Harder, 1990,
Beaty, 2001) using both total stress and effective stress
models, but none have emulated the post-shaking failure
mechanism that was actually observed. By including low
permeability barrier layers and underlying layers of higher
permeability the post-shaking failure mechanism has
been emulated, both in approximate geometry of the
Figure 44. Lower San Fernando Dam analysis (a) FLAC grid, (b) assumed (N1)60 and cohesion in
core, (c) location of low permeability barriers with vertical permeability in cm/s, and (d) 5m lateral
displacement contours at 120s (Naesgaard et al., 2006).
failing block and in achieving ongoing failure after end-of-
earthquake shaking (Naesgaard et. al., 2006).
The liquefiable portions of hydraulic fill soils were
assumed to have (N1)60 values varying from 12 to 17
while the clayey core of the dam was given undrained
shear strength of 20% of the vertical overburden
pressure. The UBCSAND constitutive model was used for
the potentially liquefiable portions of the dam while the
Mohr Coulomb model was used for the clayey core and
portions of the dam above the water table. Figure 44
shows the model grid, locations of low permeability
barriers, and the final displaced shape at 119s when the
analysis ended due to excessive distortion of the
elements (the failing mass still had a velocity of 0.2 m/s).
The identical analysis was also repeated (i) with ‘flow-off’
so as to emulate undrained behaviour and (ii) with ‘flow-
on’ but without the low permeability barriers. In both
cases deformations stopped at end-of-shaking with
deformations much less (6 to 8m) than that when the
barriers were present (>36m) (Figure 45). This clearly
demonstrates the importance of considering the effects of
pore-water redistribution. The analyses indicate that
impermeable barriers and vertical and lateral migration of
pore water play a key role in the failure mechanism.

Figure 45. Lower San Fernando Dam numerical analysis:
A = acceleration time history input at model base; B, C, &
D = horizontal displacement of upstream face (point 'x' in
figure 44) from (B) undrained silty barriers as illustrated
analysis with flow-off, (C) analysis with flow-on but no
barriers to vertical flow, and (D) analysis with flow-on and
low permeability barriers as illustrated in figure 44c.
6.4 Effective Stress Summary
The results of coupled stress-flow effective stress
analyses show that redistribution of void ratio can be very
important in sand and gravel deposits containing low
permeability silt or clay layers. Such layers can act as
barriers to upward flow and dissipation of excess pore
pressures generated by seismic loading. The effect is to
cause an expansion of the soil in a thin zone directly
beneath the barrier layer. The expansion concept is
illustrated in Figure 46 in terms of critical state concepts.
The initial state (eo-P'o) is assumed to lie below the critical
state line at point A as shown on the figure. If Ru rises to
unity during shaking then the stress point moves to point
B if the element remains undrained and has zero effective
stress. However, if it is sheared at constant void ratio it
will dilate and fail at point C on the critical state line and
will have a shear strength greater than the drained
strength. If however, inflow takes place and the element
expands, it can remain at the zero effective stress state
and continue to expand until it finally reaches the critical
state at zero effective stress, point D, and has zero shear
strength. Any further inflow to the element will result in the
formation of free water, or a water film at the sand-silt
interface.
The strength actually mobilized in any zone will depend
on the in situ void ratio prior to shaking and the amount of
inflow. The inflow in turn depends on the site stratigraphy
as it reflects the presence and degree of permeability
contrast, as well as the magnitude and duration of
shaking. The wide variation in residual strength back
e
D Expansion from inflow
ecs
e0 C e0
B A
Undrained cyclic loading CS Line
(Pcs)exp P0 (Pcs) P
Figure 46. Critical state conditions for undrained and inflow
conditions
calculated from field case histories for given density
conditions indicates that factors other than in situ density
play an important role in post-liquefaction shear strength
and should be considered as noted by Malvick et al. 2005
and Seid-Karbasi and Byrne, 2006).
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Seismic loading has caused severe damage to civil
engineering structures in past earthquakes. The design
and retrofit of these structures in Canada is largely
governed or guided by the National Building Code of
Canada. NBCC 2005 has increased the seismic loading
from an event having 10 % chance of exceedance in 50
years, to a 2475 year event having a 2% chance of
exceedance in 50 years. This has lead to a doubling of
the peak ground acceleration in Greater Vancouver, and
large increases in other areas of Canada.
Liquefaction is caused by the tendency of granular soils
to compact under cyclic shear loading. If compaction is
prevented or curtailed by the presence of water that
cannot escape, it causes pore pressure rise and
softening of soil response. If pore pressure rise causes
the effective stress to drop to zero, the stiffness and
strength also drop to zero and the soil liquefies. However,
unless the soil is very loose, it will dilate and recover
strength and stiffness. In general shear strains are small
and soil stiffness and strength remains high prior to
liquefaction. Once liquefaction is triggered in significant
zones of a foundation, strains and displacements become
large and a possible flow side is a concern. This is the
characteristic liquefaction response, and analyses
procedures should take this into account.
The current state-of-practice approach for analysis and
design for liquefaction is based on a three stage total
stress approach in which; 1) triggering of liquefaction , 2)
possibility of a flow slide, and 3) seismic displacements
are examined in three separate analyses. Because
earthquake loading is applied rapidly it is assumed that
the process occurs undrained. This is generally a
conservative assumption for assessing the triggering of
liquefaction. However, for post-liquefaction conditions it
may be highly unconservative as observed from field
experience, physical model tests, as well as effective
stress numerical modelling procedures.
State-of-art effective stress coupled stress-flow dynamic
analyses show that for a uniform sand deposit, excess
pore pressures generated by seismic shaking drain
upward to the surface, and soil elements at all depths
contract as water escapes to the surface, and liquefaction
flow failures do not occur even for loose sand deposits.
This is in accord with dynamic centrifuge modelling tests.
However, if low permeability silt or clay layers are
present, they impede the upward flow of water causing
inflow and expansion in the sand directly beneath the low
permeability barrier layer. This in turn can involve a very
large reduction in residual strength during and after
shaking and could result in flow failures even in medium
dense sands. The amount of expansion depends on the
density of the soil and the level and duration of shaking.
Analyses indicate that the actual thickness of the sand
layer itself is not a significant factor.
The results indicate that it is very important to identify the
stratified nature of the soils present at a specific site, and
take permeability contrasts and mesh size into account in
modelling and analysis. The results also indicate that
drains can be very effective in preventing the barrier layer
effect. They may not prevent the triggering of liquefaction
and the development of significant displacements due to
reduced moduli, but they can remove the permeability
contrast and prevent expansion and loss of strength
beneath the barrier (prevent flow failure).
This work is still in the development stage and in practice
residual strength obtained from back analysis of field
case histories should still be considered at the end of
shaking. However, there is very considerable scatter in
the field case history data, and the effective stress
analyses may be helpful in choosing post-liquefaction
strength values that consider site and earthquake
dependent characteristics in a rational manner.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge funding from the National
Scientific and Engineering Research Council through
Strategic Liquefaction Grant No. NSERC 246394. The
authors also acknowledge the development work on the
UBCSAND program and analyses methods by Michael
Beaty and Sung Sik Park, the centrifuge tests conducted
by Ryan Phillips at C-CORE and the insight into the flow
liquefaction problem provided by the work of T. Kokusho.
REFERENCES
Atigh, E. and Byrne, P.M. (2004) Liquefaction Flow of
Submarine Slopes Under Partially Undrained
Conditions: An Effective Stress Approach, Canadian
Geotech. Journal, 41: 154-165.
Baziar, M.H., and Dobry, R. (1995) Residual Strength
and Large Deformation Potential of Loose Silty Sands,
J. Geotech. Engineering Div., ASCE, 121(12): 896-906.
Beaty, M. H. (2001) A Synthesized Approach for
Estimating Liquefaction-Induced Displacements of
Geotechnical Structures, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Beaty M., H. and Byrne, P. M. (1999) A Synthesized
Approach for Modeling Liquefaction and
Displacements, FLAC and Numerical Modeling in
Geomechanics, 339-347.
Byrne, P.M. (1989) Liquefaction Review Report, Mufulira
Mine, Zambia, Report to Mines Safety Department,
Republic of Zambia and Zambia Consolidated Copper
Mines Ltd.
Byrne, P. M., and Beaty, M. H. (1997) Post-Liquefaction
Shear Strength of Granular Soils:
Theoritical/Conceptual Issues, Workshop on Post-
Liquefaction Shear Strength of Granular Soils, Urbana-
Champion, Illinois, 16-45.
Byrne, P. M. (1991) A Cyclic Shear-Volume Coupling and
Pore Pressure Model for Sand. Second Int. Conf.,
Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engg.,
and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri, 2: 47-55.
Byrne, P.M., and Anderson, D.L. (co-chairs) (1991)
Earthquake Design in the Fraser Delta, Task Force
Report, City of Richmond, B.C. publication and Soil
Mech. Series No. 150, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
Byrne, P.M., Imrie, A.S. and Morgenstern, N.R. (1994)
Results and Implications of Seismic Performance
Studies, Duncan Dam, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Dec., 979-988.
Byrne, P.M., Park, S., Beaty, M., Sharp, M., Gonzalez, L.,
Abdoun, T. (2004) Numerical Modeling of Liquefaction
and Comparison With Centrifuge Tests. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 41:193-211.
Byrne, P.M., Roy, D., Campanella, R.G., Hughes, J.
(1995) Predicting Liquefaction Response of Granular
Soils From Pressuremeter Tests. ASCE National
Convention, GSP 56, 122-135.
Castro, G. (1995) Empirical Methods in Liquefaction
Evaluation. Primer Ciclo de Conferencias
Internationales Leonardo Zeevaert, Mexico City.
Castro, G., Keller, T.O., and Boynton, S.S. (1989) Re-
evaluation of the Lower San Fernando Dam, Rpt. 1 Vol.
1 & 2, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Contract Rpt. GL-89-2.
Day, R. (2002) Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
Handbook. McGraw Hill publications.
Finn WD, Liam, Yogendrakumar M, Yoshida N, Yoshida
H. (1986) Tara-3: A program for Nonlinear Static and
Dynamic Effective Stress Analysis, Soil Dynamics
 Group, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC,
Canada.
Eliadorani, A. (2000) The Response of Sands Under
Partially Drained States with Emphasis on Liquefaction.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, BC. 221p.
ITASCA, 2005. FLAC -Fast Langrangian Analysis of
Continua, Version 5.0 ITASCA Consulting Group Inc.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Kokusho, T. 1999. Water film in liquefied sand and its
effect on lateral spread. J., Geotechnical and Geo-
Environmental Engg., ASCE, 125(10), pp. 817–826.
Kokusho, T. 2003. Current state of research on flow
failure considering void redistribution in liquefied
deposits. Journal of Soil Dynamic and Earthquake
Engineering, 23, pp. 585–603.
Kulasingam, R. 2003. “Effects of Void Redistribution on
Liquefaction-Induced Deformations”, PhD Thesis, Civil
and Environmental Engineering Department, U.C.,
Davis. Cal.
Malvick, E.J. 2005 “Void Redistribution-Induced Shear
Localization and Deformation in Slopes”, PhD
Dissertation, Un. Cal. Davis, 285p.
Malvick, E.J., Kutter, B.L., Boulanger, R.W., Kabasawa,
K. and Kokusho, T. 2005. Void redistribution research
with 1-g and centrifuge modeling”, In Proc. Int. Conf.,
Soil Mech. and Geotechnical Engg., ISSMGE. Osaka,
V. 4, pp. 2543-2546.
Martin, G.R., Finn, W.D.L. and Seed, H.B., 1975.
“Fundamentals of Liquefaction under Cyclic Loading,”
ASCE, J., Geotechnical Engineering Division, V.
101(GT5), Proc. Paper 11284, pp. 423-438.
NBCC, 2005. National Building Code of Canada,
National Research Council of Canada, M-58, 1200
Montreal Road, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0R6.
Naesgaard, E., and Byrne, P.M., 2005. “Flow liquefaction
due to mixing of layered deposits”, Proc. of ICSMGE
TC4 Satellite conf. on Recent Developments in
Earthquake Engineering”, Osaka, Japan, Sept., pp.
103-108.
Naesgaard, E., Byrne, P.M., Seid-Karbasi, M., and Park,
S.S., 2005. “Modeling flow liquefaction, its mitigation,
and comparison with centrifuge tests”, Proc. of
ICSMGE TC4 Satellite conf. on Recent Developments
in Earthquake Engineering”, Osaka, Japan, Sept. pp.
95-103.
Naesgaard, E., Byrne, P.M., and Seid-Karbasi, 2006.
“Modeling flow liquefaction and pore water
th
redistribution mechanisms,” In Proc. of 8 U.S.
National Conf. Earthquake Engineering, EERI, San
Francisco, Apr.
Newmark, N.M. 1965. "Effects of Earthquakes on Dams
and Embankments," J., Geotechnique, 15, No. 2, pp.
139-160.
Olson, S. M. and Stark, T.D., 2002. Liquefied strength
ratio from liquefaction flow failure case histories.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: 629–647.
Phillips, R.,, Tu, M., and Coulter, S., 2004. “C-CORE.
Earthquake Induced Damage Mitigation from Soil
Liquefaction. Data report – Centrifuge Test CT5”.
Contract Report Prepared for University of British
Columbia. C-CORE Report R-04-068-145, December.
Phillips, R., and Coulter, S., 2005. “COSTA-C Centrifuge
Test Data Report”, C-CORE Report R-04-082-075,
January.
Prevost, J.H. DYANAFLOW, 1981. A nonlinear transient
finite element analysis program, Princeton University,
Department of Civil Engineering, Princeton, N J.
Puebla, H., Byrne, P.M., Phillips, R., 1997. Analysis of
CANLEX liquefaction embankment: prototype and
centrifuge models. Canadian Geotechnical J., 34, 641-
654.
Puebla, H., 1999. A constitutive model for sand analysis
of the CANLEX embankment. PhD. Thesis, Civil Engg.
Dept., University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
Sanin, M.V. and Wijewickreme, D., 2005. Response of a
natural deltaic silt under level ground cyclic shear
loading. Accepted for publ. in J., Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering.
Seed, H.B., Lee, K.L., Idriss, I.M., and Makdisi, F., 1973.
Analysis of the slides in the San Fernando Dams
during the earthquake of Feb. 9, 1971. Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Rpt. EERC 73-2.
Seed, H.B., Seed, R.B., Harder, L.F., and Jong, H.L.,
1989. Re-evaluation of the Lower San Fernando Dam,
Rpt. 2, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Contract Rpt. GL-89-2.
Seed, R.B., and Harder, L.F., Jr. 1990. SPT-based
analysis of cyclic pore pressure generation and
undrained residual strength. In Proceedings of the H.B.
Seed Memorial Symposium, Bi-Tech Publishing Ltd.,
Vol. 2, pp. 351–376.
Seid-Karbasi, M. 2006. Effects of void redistribution on
liquefaction-induced ground failures: A numerical
investigation. Ph.D. Dissertation, University British
Columbia, Vancouver, BC (in preparation).
Seid-Karbasi, M., Byrne, P.M., 2004a. Embankment dams
and earthquakes. Hydropower and Dams J., 11(2), 96-
102.
Seid-Karbasi, M., Byrne, P.M., 2004b. Liquefaction,
th
lateral spreading and flow slides. In Proc. 57 Can.
Geo. Conf., paper # G13.529.
Seid-Karbasi, M., Byrne, P.M., 2006. Seismic
liquefaction, lateral spreading and flow slides: A
numerical investigation into void redistribution.
Submitted for publication to J. Canadian Geotechnical.
Sriskandakumar, S., 2004. “Cyclic loading response of
Fraser River Sand for numerical models simulating
centrifuge tests”, M.A.Sc. Thesis, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, B.C, 159p.
Wu, J., 2002. “Liquefaction triggering and post
liquefaction deformations of Monterey 0/30 Sand under
uni-directional cyclic simple shear loading,” PhD
Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, Calf.
Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R., Arango, I., Castro, G.,
Christian, J., Dobry, J., Finn, L., Harder Jr., L., Hynes,
H.M., Ishihara, K., Koester, J., Liao, S.S., Marcuson III,
W.F., Martin, G., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power,
M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., and Stokoe II, K.H.,
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: 817-833.
Youd, T.L., Hansen, C.M., and Bartlett, S.F., 2002.
Revised multi-linear regression Equations for prediction
of lateral spread displacement. ASCE J., Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128, pp. 1007-
1017.
Youd T.L., Cetin K.O., Bray J.D., Seed R.B., Durgunoglu
T, and Onalp A., 2003. “Geotechnical investigation at
lateral spread sites.” Accessed from
http://peer.berkeley.edu/turkey/adapazari/phase4/
index.htm.