Cyclic Large Strain and Induced Pore Pressure

Models for Saturated Clean Sands

K. Onder Cetin, M.ASCE1; and H. Tolga Bilge, S.M.ASCE2

Abstract: Semiempirical probabilistic models are described to assess cyclic large strain and induced excess pore-water pressure responses of
fully saturated clean sands. For this purpose, available cyclic simple shear and triaxial tests were compiled and studied. The resulting r u versus
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

γ, and γ versus N databases are composed of 101 and 84 cyclic test data, respectively. Key parameters of the proposed ru and γ models are
defined as critical shear strain, relative density, effective confining stress, and equivalent number of loading cycles. Consistent with the
maximum likelihood methodology, model coefficients were estimated by maximizing the likelihood function. For comparison purposes,
the compiled database was again used to evaluate the performance of existing r u models. Both for comparison and calibration purposes,
for each framework, two separate sets of limit-state models were used: model implemented with (1) the original and (2) the updated model
coefficients. The model performances are assessed by simple statistics (i.e., mean and standard deviation) of residuals. It is concluded that
existing models produce inconsistently biased predictions that vary in the range of 2.5 to 70%. The successes of the proposed and existing
models are also assessed for the validation database composed of additional 10 cyclic test results. In addition to (1) repeated improved
predictions, (2) differentiating contractive or dilative cyclic soil responses, and (3) incorporation of strain-dependent modulus degradation
effects, the main advantage of the proposed methodology is the probabilistic nature of model predictions, which enables the incorporation of
the model uncertainty into pore pressure generation predictions. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000631. © 2012 American Society
of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Strain; Pore-water; Water pressure; Triaxial tests; Shear tests; Sand (soil type).
Author keywords: Shear strain; Pore-water pressure; Cyclic response; Cyclic triaxial tests; Cyclic simple shear tests.

Introduction review of these approaches will be subsequently presented, a pre-

During earthquakes, shear stresses attributable to stress-wave
propagation induce cyclic shear strains leading to rearrangement
of soil particles and generation of excess pore-water pressure.
Undrained loading-induced elevated pore-water pressure reduces
the effective confining stress-dependent soil stiffness, which in turn
triggers the vicious cycle of further strain and excess pore pressure
accumulation. In the extreme, excess pore-water pressure ap-
proaches to total stress, defining the onset of cyclic soil liquefac-
tion. Understanding this outlined cyclic pore pressure and corollary
straining response of saturated cohesionless soils has been a major
concern of geotechnical and earthquake engineering since the very
early days of the professions.
A number of methodologies, which are grouped under the head-
ings of (1) stress based (e.g., Seed et al. 1975; Booker et al. 1976),
(2) strain-based (e.g., Martin et al. 1975; Dobry et al. 1985),
(3) energy-based (e.g., Davis and Berrill 1982; Green et al.
2000), (4) plasticity theory based (e.g., Prevost 1985; Elgamal et al.
2003), (5) other (e.g., Oda et al. 2001; Eggzelos 2004), were pro-
posed to assess quantitatively these responses. Although a detailed
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical Univ.,
06531, Ankara, Turkey (corresponding author). E-mail: onder@ce.metu
.edu.tr
2
Graduate Researcher, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Selcuk Univ., Konya,
Turkey.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 17, 2009; approved
on September 7, 2011; published online on September 9, 2011. Discussion
period open until August 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 138, No. 3, March 1, 2012. ©ASCE,
ISSN 1090-0241/2012/3-309–323/$25.00.
vious discussion on some of the critical issues is preferred.
1. Over the years, the reliability of cyclic testing has improved
and the number of available test data has increased. Thus, ex-
isting cyclic-testing data-based pore-water pressure generation
models deserve a revisit.
2. Excess pore pressure assessments founded on implemented
constitutive models generally require a large number of input
parameters, which are difficult to be determined under the ab-
sence of advance laboratory testing and interpretation of their
results. Thus, empirically, or semiempirically based models
have and will continue to establish the state of practice.
3. The accuracy and uncertainty with regard to the predictions of
existing models have not been fully understood and quantified
yet, with the exception of a limited number of attempts
(e.g., Chameau and Clough 1983; Polito et al. 2008).
4. Despite its numerous advantages, during strain-controlled
tests, difficulties in testing specimens beyond shear strain le-
vels of 1% inevitably diverted researchers to stress-controlled
testing for developing an understanding of coupled pore pres-
sure response beyond 1% shear strain levels.
On the basis of these observations, the main motivation of this
study is defined as to (1) assess the validity of existing cyclically
induced pore-water pressure models and the accuracy of their pre-
dictions, and (2) develop a practical-to-use and a robust semiem-
pirical model to assess cyclic straining and induced excess pore
pressure responses of fully saturated clean sands. For this purpose,
results of stress-controlled cyclic triaxial (CTXT) and simple shear
tests (SSTs) were compiled and studied. Following a brief review of
the available literature, data compilation efforts are discussed. As
part of the literature review, emphasis will be given only to method-
ologies, which are more widely referred to and used in practice.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012 / 309

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:309-323.

 Review of Existing Models the change in volumetric strain attributable to cyclic shearing.

r and Δεvd are defined as follows:
The variables E
In addition to the proposed model, for comparison purposes, cyclic
pore pressure responses of clean sand specimens were also assessed
r ¼ ðσ0v Þ1
m
E ð4Þ
by widely used stress-based methods of Seed et al. (1975) and m · k2 · ðσ0v0 Þn
m
Polito et al. (2008); strain-based methods of Martin et al. (1975),
Dobry et al. (1985), and Byrne (1991); and energy-based model of c3 · ε2vd
Green et al. (2000). However, before then, a brief summary on the Δεvd ¼ c1 · ðγ
c2 · εvd Þ þ ð5Þ
γ þ c4 · εvd
evolution of these methods will be presented.
where σ0v and σ0v0 , respectively = vertical and initial vertical effec-
Stress-Based Models
tive stresses; γ = induced cyclic shear strain; εvd = accumulated
On the basis of stress-controlled CTXT results on Monterey and volumetric strain; and ci , m, n, k 2 = model coefficients. For loose
Sacramento River sands, Lee and Albaisa (1974) proposed an em- crystal silica sands (DR ≈ 45%), model coefficients, c1 through c4 ,
pirical relationship between excess pore-water pressure ratio (r u ) were recommended to be used as 0.80, 0.79, 0.45, and 0.73, respec-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and cycle number ratio (N=N liq ), which was claimed to be insensi- tively. The following correction was proposed for relative density
tive to soil type, relative density (DR ), initial effective confining states other than 45%:
stress (σc;0 ), and number of cycles to liquefaction (N liq ). On the ba-
sis of De Alba et al. (1975) experimental data, Seed et al. (1975) ðΔεvd ÞDR1 ¼ R · ðΔεvd ÞDR ¼45 ð6Þ
developed an empirical, closed-form solution as given in Eq. (1)

    where, on the basis of the findings of Silver and Seed (1971), R = a
1 1
1 N 1=α function of DR for crystal silica sands, presented as follows.
ru ¼ þ sin 2 ·
1 ð1Þ
2 π N liq
R ¼ 0:00031 · ð100
DR Þ2 þ 0:062 for 45 < DR < 80% ð7Þ
where α = recommended to be functions of soil properties and test
conditions with an average value of 0.7; and N = number of equiv- Martin et al. (1975) formulated the cyclic shear strain (γ) response,
alent uniform loading cycles. The proposed expression was as presented in Eqs. (8)–(10)
subsequently simplified by Booker et al. (1976). Chameau and τ ·a
Clough (1983) adopted the same functional form in their probabil- γ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi0 ð8Þ
istically based model. Wang and Kavazanjian (1985) benefitted σv
τ · b
from this approach to predict pore-water pressure response under
εvd
transient loads. Liyanapathirana and Poulos (2002) implemented a ¼ A1
ð9Þ
it in a finite-element-based model. More recently, Polito et al. A2 þ A3 · εvd
(2008) statistically reevaluated Seed et al.’s (1975) methodology
εvd
and concluded that the model coefficient α needs to be estimated b ¼ B1
ð10Þ
as a function of cyclic stress ratio (CSR), fines content (FC), and DR , B2 þ B3 · εvd
given as follows:
where τ = cyclic shear stress; and A1 , A2 , A3 , B1 , B2 , B3 = model
α ¼ 0:01166 · FC þ 0:007397 · DR þ 0:01034 · CSR þ 0:5058 coefficients.
ð2Þ On the basis of Martin et al.’s (1975) findings, Finn et al. (1976,
1977) developed an effective-stress-based constitutive model,
Eq. (2) is suggested to be used for soils with FC < 35%. For clean which has been widely used for ground response and liquefaction
sands (FC ¼ 0), because of the equation’s relative insensitivity to assessments. Subsequently, Byrne (1991) simplified this approach
CSR, DR remains as the major controlling model parameter. For the and recommended a new incremental volumetric strain definition
given coefficients, the value of α is estimated to vary in the range of as given in Eq. (11)
0.73 to 1.14.  
Original and modified versions of Seed et al.’s approach have Δεvd ε
¼ c1 · exp
c2 · vd ð11Þ
stayed as relatively simpler and widely used cyclic excess pore γ γ
pressure generation models. However, (1) difficulties in defining
and estimating N liq , (2) lack of effective differentiation between where c1 and c2 are defined as follows:
cyclic liquefaction and mobility responses, and (3) the need to con-
vert transient earthquake excitations to equivalent harmonic cycles c1 ¼ 7;600 · ðDR Þ
2:5 ð12Þ
are reported as major limitations.
c2 ¼ 0:4=c1 ð13Þ
Strain-Based Models
Byrne (1991) model was subsequently implemented in dynamic-
Martin et al. (1975) proposed an alternative framework on the basis
coupled stress-flow finite difference software Fast Lagrangian
of the results of strain-controlled cyclic tests performed on dry
Analysis of Continua (FLAC). Both Finn et al. (1976, 1977)
sands. The authors derived semiempirical relationships between
and Byrne (1991) models were based on physical laws, and incor-
the tendencies of volumetric straining and excess pore-water pres-
poration of them into commercially available codes has increased
sure generation of dry and fully saturated sands subjected to strain
their use. However, the requirement of a large number of model
cycles. The following expression was proposed:
parameters is the cost of these models.
Δu ¼ E

r · Δεvd ð3Þ On another path, Dobry et al. (1982) attempted to link cyclic
shear straining to pore-water pressure generation. The authors de-
where Δu = increase in excess pore-water pressure; E
r = veloped a unique relationship among ru , cyclic shear strain ampli-
tangent modulus of the one-dimensional (1D) unloading curve tude, and the number of loading cycles on the basis of undrained,
corresponding to the initial effective vertical stress; and Δεvd is strain-controlled CTXT results. A threshold shear strain level of

310 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:309-323.

 10
2 %, below which applied shear strains do not trigger significant
excess pore-water pressures, was proposed. Subsequently, on the
basis of the results of Dobry et al. (1982) and the model of Martin
et al. (1975), Dobry et al. (1985) proposed an alternative method
by defining cyclic excess pore-water pressure as a function of un-
drained unloading-reloading modulus of the sand skeleton and
volumetric strain tendency per cycle, which was assumed to be con-
stant for strain-controlled testing. The proposed methodology was
subsequently modified by Vucetic and Dobry (1986), and the fol-
lowing closed-form solution was proposed:
p · f · N c · F · ðγc
γtvp
Þb
r u;N ¼ ð14Þ
1 þ f · N c · F · ðγc
γtvp Þb
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
where γc = cyclic shear strain amplitude; and γtvp = volumetric
threshold shear strain, below which no significant pore-water pres-
sure is generated and is usually between 0.01 and 0.02% for most
sands (Dobry et al. 1982). Model coefficient f can be assumed as 1
or 2, depending on whether pore pressures are induced by one-or
two-directional shaking, whereas the rest of coefficients F, p, and b
are obtained by laboratory data-based fitting attempts. This model
was subsequently utilized by Matasovic and Vucetic (1993),
Matasovic (2006), and Hashash (2009) in their effective-stress-
based nonlinear ground response modeling softwares D-Mod,
D-Mod_2, Deepsoil, respectively.
Recently, strain-based approaches were revisited by Hazirbaba
(2005), and the effects of nonplastic fines on pore pressure gener-
ation were investigated. In addition to the major limitation of not
being able to reliably test specimens at larger strain levels (> 1%),
during strain-controlled tests, unique matching of shear strain and
r u responses independent of relative state (i.e., lack of differentiat-
ing the dilative and contractive responses) and applied number of
strain cycles limit wider use of the strain-controlled testing-based
models. In the following sections, these limitations will be dis-
cussed further.
Energy-Based Models
A separate leg of research studies has evolved in strain-energy con-
cepts. These studies attempted to link the change in excess pore
pressure to the energy dissipated per unit volume of soil during
the same cycle of loading. Nemat-Nasser and Shokooh (1979) first
established the governing equations relating energy dissipation to
volumetric densification of dry sands and pore pressure generation
of fully saturated sands. On the basis of their theoretical work, suc-
ceeding attempts appeared mostly focusing on the development of
empirical models benefiting from experimental data (e.g., Davis
and Berrill 1982, 2001; Yamazaki et al. 1985; Law et al. 1990;
Hsu 1995; Wang et al. 1997; Green et al. 2000). An extensive sum-
mary of previous studies, along with a new set of calibration param-
eters, was presented by Green (2001). Additionally, Green et al.
(2000) proposed the following model:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ws
ru ¼ ≤1 ð15Þ
PEC
where W s = energy dissipated per unit volume of soil divided by the
initial effective mean confining stress; and pseudoenergy capacity
(PEC) = serves the purpose of a calibration parameter. Increments
in W s can be related to stress conditions, and increments in strain by
ðσ0v dεv þ 2σ0h dεh þ τ vh dγvh þ τ hv dγhv Þ
dW s ¼ ð16Þ
σ0m0
where dW s = incremental dissipated energy normalized by the
initial effective mean stress (σ0m0 ); σ0v = vertical effective stress;
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012 / 311
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:309-323.
dεv = incremental vertical strain; σ0h = horizontal effective stress;
dεh = incremental radial strain; τ vh = horizontal shear stress acting
on a plane having a vertical normal vector; dεvh = incremental shear
strain resulting from τ vh ; τ hv = vertical shear stress acting on a plane
having a horizontal normal vector; and dεhv = incremental shear
strain resulting from τ hv . For undrained cyclic triaxial and simple
shear conditions, respectively, W s in Eq. (16) can be solved numeri-
cally as follows:
1 Xn
1
Ws ¼ 0 ½ðσ þ σd;i Þ · ðεa;iþ1
εa;i Þ ð17Þ
2σ0 i¼1 d;iþ1
1 X n
1
Ws ¼ ½ðτ þ τ i Þ · ðγiþ1
γi Þ ð18Þ
2σ00 i¼1 iþ1
where n = number of load increments applied to specimen; σd;i and
σd;iþ1 = applied deviator stresses at load increments “i” and “i þ 1,”
respectively; εa;i and εa;iþ1 = axial strains at load increments “i”
and “i þ 1,” respectively; and τ i , τ iþ1 and γi , γiþ1 = applied
shear stresses and shear strains at load increments “i” and “i þ 1,”
respectively.
Green et al. (2000) suggested a procedure for the determination
of PEC from cyclic test data. Subsequently, Polito et al. (2008) ex-
pressed PEC as a function of DR and FC given as follows:
lnðPECÞ ¼ expðc3 · DR Þ þ c4 for FC < 35% ð19Þ
where c3 and c4 = model coefficients and estimated as 0.0139 and

1:021, respectively. The standard deviation of this model was re-
ported as 0.6591. Green et al.’s (2000) procedure by adopting Polito
et al.’s (2008) expression for the estimation of PEC is used for com-
parison purposes and will be simply referred to as Green Mitchell
Polito (GMP) model from this point on.
Energy-based models do not require the use of a load conversion
scheme to estimate equivalent harmonic loading cycles of a
transient earthquake excitation, and can conveniently capture the
effects of stress (or strain) histories on actual r u versus γ responses,
adversely require, a priori, either the complete stress-strain history
or a constitutive model that enables the estimation of induced strain
levels under applied stress cycles.
Plasticity Theory-Based Models
A number of researchers (Prevost 1985; Pastor et al. 1990; Wang
et al. 1990; Ishihara 1993; Fukutake and Ohtsuki 1995; Elgamal
et al. 2003; Park and Byrne 2004), benefiting from different
branches of theory of plasticity, developed effective stress-based
models capable of predicting cyclic excess pore pressure response.
These constitutive model-based assessments have been increas-
ingly implemented in various numerical analyses software. How-
ever, for the most conventional projects, adequate laboratory or
field test data to evaluate accurately the model input parameters
are absent. Sourcing from either budget or time constraints, this
reduces the success of the overall numerical schemes, independent
of how precise the constitutive model predictions are. This will stay
as a major obstacle against wider use of these models.
Other Studies
There exist a number of other studies and methods aiming to assess
the excess pore-water pressure response of fully saturated clean
sands. Because of page limitations, only a few will be referred
to. Marcuson et al. (1990) used r u to estimate the reduction of soil
stiffness during earthquake loading. Benefiting from the works of
Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1983), Evans (1987), and Hynes (1988),
they attempted to develop a relationship between residual ru value
 and factor of safety against liquefaction (FSliq ). Oda et al. (2001) Table 1. Databases Reviewed
linked the increment in pore-water pressure at the end of the first Number of test data
cycle to the number of cycles required to cause a double-amplitude
Number Reference γ versus N ru versus γ
axial strain of 5% in CTXTs, regardless of DR and CSR. Sub-
sequently, Wu et al. (2003) improved this approach on the basis 1 Seed et al. (1975) — 2
of cyclic SST results performed on Monterey sand. They developed 2 Prakash (1981) — 1
a closed-form solution, which relates the number of cycles to 3 Das (1983) — 1
induce 6% double-amplitude shear strain (adopted as the initial 4 Ishihara (1985) — 2
liquefaction criterion by them) and the increment in pore-water
5 Riemer et al. (1994) — 6
pressure at the end of the first cycle. Wu et al. (2003) also reeval-
6 Evans and Rollins (1999) — 2
uated the Lee and Albaisa (1974) approach and concluded that
their upper limit pore-water pressure generation curve does not 7 Ishihara (1996) 1 1
serve as an upper cap for the observed laboratory responses. Sim- 8 Park and Desai (2000) 3 3
ilarly, Eggzelos (2004) developed an empirically based pore-water 9 Ueng et al. (2004) 1 —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

pressure model by using the r u value at the end of the first loading
cycle as a model input parameter, and extended this work to assess
pore-water pressure generation behavior of gravels. Boulanger et al.
(1991) focused on the effects of the presence and direction of initial
static shear stresses on pore-water pressure response of clean sands
by performing a series of SSTs. Kammerer (2002) performed
additional bidirectional SSTs and concluded that r u values typically
increase more rapidly under multidirectional loading than in
“equivalent” unidirectional tests. However, the complex nature
of the problem made it difficult to propose a quantitative model
addressing the effects of the bidirectional loading and the presence
of initial static shear stresses. More recently, Chang et al. (2007)
revisited previous experimental efforts on pore-water pressure
modeling, and addressed several factors, such as (1) upward
seepage, (2) formation of water film, (3) stratified soil effects, and
(4) alteration of ground motion, which are believed to affect cyclic
shearing of soils in situ. Considering these factors, they have high-
lighted the significance of monitoring pore-water pressure behavior
in situ.
Proposed Model
Developing a semiempirical model naturally requires fulfilling the
following steps: (1) data compilation, filtering, and consolidation;
(2) defining the variables (descriptors) and the mathematical form
(limit state) of the problem (i.e., model development); (3) assessing
the model coefficients; and (4) validation and calibration. These
will be discussed next.
Database Compilation Efforts
Efforts aiming to develop a semiempirical or empirical model, or to
validate and calibrate existing models require the compilation of
high-quality database. For this purpose, as listed in Table 1, test
results reported by various researchers were compiled and studied.
Databases listed in 1 through 9 of Table 1 were eliminated because
of lack of complete documentation of both pore pressure and
shear strain responses at every cycle of shearing. As will be sub-
sequently discussed, Vaid and Chern (1983), Arulmoli et al. (1992),
Sriskandakumar (2003), Ghionna and Porcino (2006); and Porcino
and Caridi (2007) databases were reserved for validation purposes.
Hence, the proposed models were developed by using Boulanger
et al. (1991), Wu et al. (2003), and Bilge (2005) databases. As pre-
sented in Table 2, because of the fact that the proposed γ versus N
model requires the input of maximum cyclic shear strain at the end
of the 20th loading cycle, if r u and γ responses are available until
the end of the maximum number of loading cycles, N max , equals to
or greater than 20, then these test results are included in both r u
versus γ, and γ versus N databases. If not, they are only used in
the r u versus γ database. Thus, 13 out of 101 and 13 out of 84 cyclic
10 Vaid and Chern (1983) 2 2
11 Arulmoli et al. (1992) 4 4
12 Sriskandakumar (2003) 2 2
13 Ghionna and Porcino (2006) 1 1
14 Porcino and Caridi (2007) 1 1
15 Boulanger et al. (1991) 13 13
16 Wu et al. (2003) 55 50
17 Bilge (2005) 16 38
Total 99 129
laboratory tests were adopted from Boulanger et al. (1991) database
for r u versus γ and γ versus N databases, respectively. In their study,
results of stress-controlled SSTs performed on moist tamped
Sacramento River sand were presented. Specimens were consoli-
dated under an effective vertical stress of 207 kPa, and cyclic load-
ing was applied at 0.2 Hz. Fifty out of 101 and 55 out of 84 cyclic
laboratory tests were adopted from Wu et al. (2003) database for r u
versus γ and γ versus N databases, respectively. The results of
stress-controlled SSTs performed on wet pluviated Monterey num-
ber 0=30 sand were presented in their study. Specimens were first
K 0 -consolidated to an effective vertical stress of 40, 80, or 180 kPa,
and cyclic loading was applied at 0.1 Hz. Similarly, the results of 38
and 16 stress-controlled CTXTs performed on poorly graded (SP)
Kizilirmak River sand specimens were compiled from Bilge (2005)
for r u versus γ and γ versus N databases, respectively. Samples
were reconstituted in the laboratory by either dry pluviation or
moist-tamping method depending on the target relative density,
and then they were consolidated isotropically under a confinement
pressure of 100 kPa. The frequency of cyclic loading was selected
as 1 Hz. Maximum double-amplitude shear strain values were
estimated by simply multiplying the maximum double-amplitude
axial strain values by a value of 1.50, which was estimated on
the basis of the elasticity theory for undrained conditions (i.e.,
for Poisson’s ratio of 0.5). A summary of test conditions [test type,
confining stresses, σ0v;0 or (σ0c;0 ), applied uncorrected test CSR
values], along with specimen relative density and resulting maxi-
mum r u and γ values, is presented in Table 2.
Distribution of specimens with respect to DR is relatively
uniform, whereas the resulting databases, more pronounced in
the r u versus γ database, are concluded to be biased with tests of
initial confining stresses of 100 kPa. This sampling bias will be
subsequently addressed and corrected in the assessment of the pro-
posed model coefficients.
For comparison purposes, the compiled database is presented in
the r u versus N=N liq domain along with the upper and lower boun-
daries of Seed et al. (1975) and Polito et al. (2008) frameworks as
given in Fig. 1. For the purpose of achieving a r u value of 1.0 at
N=N liq ¼ 1:0, N liq is defined as the number of cycles to the first

312 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:309-323.

 Table 2. Summary of the Test Results Used for the Development of the Proposed Models
Data source Test type Test number DR (%) σ0v;0 (or σ0c;0 ) (kPa) Cyclic stress ratio N max r u;max γmax (%)
Boulanger et al. (1991) Simple shear test 1 54 207 0.125 20 0.43 0.20
2 54 207 0.160 20 1.00 30.00
3 56 207 0.140 20 0.43 0.40
4 55 207 0.160 20 1.00 4.10
5 56 207 0.150 20 0.35 0.40
6 54 207 0.155 20 0.85 1.80
7 56 207 0.150 20 1.00 12.00
8 56 207 0.150 20 0.95 6.00
9 56 207 0.170 20 0.40 0.20
10 36 207 0.100 20 0.40 0.25
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

11 35 207 0.100 20 0.37 0.35

12 35 207 0.130 20 0.45 0.15
13 35 207 0.110 20 0.45 0.20
Wu et al. (2003) Simple shear test 14 58 33 0.324 9 1.00 25.00
15 55 80 0.166 6 1.00 23.80
16 45 85 0.249 8 1.00 33.00
17 43 81 0.200 11 1.00 34.20
18 56 85 0.339 7 1.00 40.00
19 56 85 0.247 22 1.00 30.80
20 77 77 0.364 14 1.00 15.40
21 79 79 0.406 15 1.00 10.40
22 71 80 0.340 19 1.00 11.50
23 75 85 0.447 17 1.00 14.10
24 50 75 0.220 10 1.00 17.60
25 44 81 0.151 60 1.00 30.90
26 31 82 0.181 9 1.00 30.00
27 61 32 0.236 42 1.00 33.00
28 45 32 0.287 8 1.00 36.00
29 33 39 0.226 9 1.00 35.50
30 33 34 0.171 16 1.00 21.00
31 58 98 0.223 14 1.00 9.60
32 56 40 0.258 19 1.00 17.20
33 66 36 0.240 38 1.00 6.15
34 50 36 0.201 26 1.00 17.10
35 40 43 0.173 26 1.00 13.80
36 67 37 0.351 20 1.00 17.40
37 46 43 0.216 10 1.00 26.00
38 63 42 0.276 32 1.00 31.00
39 60 79 0.233 18 1.00 11.00
40 38 34 0.156 22 1.00 16.90
41 47 45 0.217 16 1.00 28.20
42 63 43 0.407 11 1.00 21.00
43 63 173 0.221 28 1.00 16.30
44 64 182 0.247 20 1.00 16.00
45 65 178 0.297 10 1.00 13.40
46 45 180 0.157 30 1.00 15.00
47 54 182 0.179 26 1.00 12.10
48 85 18 0.355 22 1.00 8.30
49 55 180 0.183 14 1.00 16.40
50 60 182 0.180 70 1.00 27.00
51 84 178 0.355 40 1.00 7.55
52 81 179 0.351 30 1.00 11.90
53 81 178 0.368 30 1.00 8.90
54 83 177 0.435 20 1.00 12.00
55 51 180 0.182 19 1.00 19.00
56 54 180 0.199 7 1.00 16.00

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012 / 313

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:309-323.

 Table 2. (Continued.)
Data source Test type Test number DR (%) σ0v;0 (or σ0c;0 ) (kPa) Cyclic stress ratio N max r u;max γmax (%)
57 540 176 0.220 13 1.00 25.00
58 81 178 0.460 19 1.00 14.70
59 78 38 0.440 28 1.00 9.60
60 74 44 0.395 20 1.00 6.70
61 81 83 0.424 6 1.00 7.90
62 49 81 0.312 11 1.00 24.50
63 64 79 0.429 20 1.00 22.50
64 54 95 0.195 20 0.46 0.65
65 59 85 0.166 20 0.31 0.35
66 48 40 0.164 20 0.37 0.20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

67 40 85 0.099 20 0.17 0.20

68 43 85 0.136 20 0.30 0.30
69 82 80 0.401 20 1.00 7.20
70 80 79 0.292 20 0.66 1.50
71 70 80 0.227 20 0.61 0.70
72 77 81 0.205 20 0.37 0.25
73 50 75 0.220 20 1.00 17.50
74 44 83 0.162 20 0.34 0.15
75 34 80 0.162 20 0.87 6.10
76 38 36 0.141 20 0.28 0.50
77 37 82 0.119 20 0.25 0.10
78 74 40 0.322 20 0.77 1.90
79 63 40 0.371 20 0.94 4.20
80 75 36 0.360 20 0.48 0.50
81 50 40 0.157 20 0.46 0.70
82 78 40 0.224 20 0.37 0.40
83 81 37 0.418 20 0.70 2.30
84 82 35 0.479 20 0.82 4.00
85 49 39 0.173 20 0.52 0.60
86 38 40 0.128 20 0.23 0.20
87 60 181 0.158 20 0.30 0.35
88 78 179 0.273 20 0.83 3.40
89 78 180 0.214 20 0.47 0.50
90 78 81 0.367 20 0.92 5.95
91 81 86 0.371 20 0.90 5.60
Bilge (2005) Cyclic triaxial test 92 75 100 0.390 20 0.74 3.84
93 85 100 0.500 20 0.59 1.61
94 80 100 0.450 20 0.60 1.41
95 82 100 0.550 20 0.74 4.51
96 75 100 0.500 12 1.00 16.60
97 80 100 0.400 20 0.37 0.37
98 66 100 0.580 11 1.00 9.96
99 77 100 0.210 20 0.23 0.20
100 60 100 0.350 14 1.00 6.50
101 69 100 0.200 20 0.09 0.12
102 65 100 0.100 20 0.23 0.08
103 71 100 0.480 17 1.00 25.00
104 75 100 0.250 20 0.45 0.57
105 75 100 0.200 20 0.25 0.41
106 65 100 0.250 20 0.71 4.19
107 65 100 0.550 14 1.00 15.23
108 60 100 0.400 9 1.00 35.84
109 74 100 0.150 20 0.34 1.28
110 35 100 0.200 5 1.00 32.00
111 65 100 0.300 13 1.00 11.01
112 57 100 0.350 11 1.00 19.34

314 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:309-323.

 Table 2. (Continued.)
Data source Test type Test number DR (%) σ0v;0 (or σ0c;0 ) (kPa) Cyclic stress ratio N max r u;max γmax (%)
113 75 100 0.140 20 0.15 0.21
114 72 100 0.400 12 1.00 22.27
115 57 100 0.380 4 1.00 24.39
116 64 100 0.420 7 1.00 12.63
117 46 100 0.300 19 1.00 22.01
118 82 100 0.310 20 0.23 0.49
119 64 100 0.350 10 1.00 8.11
120 51 100 0.380 4 1.00 24.11
121 55 100 0.200 17 1.00 20.00
122 60 100 0.500 13 1.00 28.00
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

123 75 100 0.500 11 1.00 19.82

124 59 100 0.240 18 1.00 24.59
125 45 100 0.400 10 1.00 20.26
126 59 100 0.280 8 1.00 21.49
127 85 100 0.250 20 0.14 0.36
128 75 100 0.400 20 0.75 4.35
129 84 100 0.120 20 0.04 0.09

occurrence of r u ¼ 1:0. The upper and lower boundaries of Polito
et al. (2008) were obtained by using Eq. (2) with different combi-
nations of DR (30–85%) and CSR (0.05–0.50). Consistent with the
findings of Wu et al. (2003), these comparisons revealed that
the proposed boundary curves are not only biased, but also cannot
encapsulate all the data points, indicating a larger variability in r u
versus N=N liq domain.
Dobry (1985) also proposed upper and lower boundaries in the
r u versus γ domain on the basis of the results of strain-controlled
cyclic tests, and these boundaries are presented comparatively with
the compiled database in Fig. 2. As briefly referred to previously,
there exists a major disagreement in r u versus γ responses of stress-
and strain-controlled test data because of significantly different
strain paths followed during these cyclic tests. In simpler terms,
Dobry’s boundary curves correspond to a specific case, in which
10 cycles of shear strains were applied, and at the end of which
corollary r u values were estimated. However, during stress-
controlled cyclic testing, the estimated r u values correspond to the
first occurrence (rather than the 10th) of the recorded maximum
strain levels, and are less dependent on the stress (or strain) histories.
Thus, direct comparisons between strain and stress test result-based
methods are concluded to be misleading and not fair.
Limit-State Models
The model for the limit-state function has the general form g ¼ g
(x, Θ), where x is a set of descriptive parameters and Θ is the set of
unknown model coefficients. Inspired by previous studies and ob-
servational trends, it is concluded that the key parameters affecting
excess pore-water pressure generation response are induced—
cyclic shear strain (γmax ), DR , and σ0v;0 (or σ0m;0 ). As shown in Fig. 3,
owing to lack of strong r u versus γmax trends as a function of sample
preparation technique (i.e., moist tamped, air or wet pluviated), and
with the aim of a less complex model, an input parameter to address
sample preparation technique was not included in the proposed
mathematical model. Strong correlation between shear and volu-
metric straining (e.g., Ishihara and Yoshimine 1992; Cetin et al.
2009), and volumetric straining and excess pore pressure genera-
tion encouraged the use of γmax alone, rather than together with
volumetric strain in the limit-state model. Various functional forms
have been tested, and the following mathematical (functional)

Fig. 1. Comparison of the test results with Seed et al. (1975) and Polito Fig. 2. Comparison of the test results with Dobry (1985) boundary
et al. (2008) boundary curves curves

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012 / 315

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:309-323.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Proposed r u versus γmax;N model along with test results used in
this study
form, where θi;ru;N represents the set of unknown model coefficients,
was concluded to be improved, not only because of its best fit to
available data, but also because of its power to differentiate dilative
and contractive soil responses.
gru;N ðDR ; σ0v;0 ; γmax;N ; r u;N ; ΘÞ ¼ lnðru;N Þ


θ1;ru;N · γmax;N

ln 1
exp

θ2;ru;N þ θ3;ru;N · ln σ0v;0
ðDR =100Þ
 
θ4;ru;N
· þ1 þ εlnðru;N Þ
1 þ γmax;N
The first denominator of the exponential term [i.e., θ2;ru;N þ
θ3;ru;N · ln σ0v0
ðDR =100Þ] is written in a functional form very sim-
ilar to dilation index (Konrad 1988). Similarly, the multiplier inside
θ4;r
the exponent term [i.e., ð1þγmax;N
u;N
þ 1Þ] has a form very similar to
strain-dependent modulus degradation (Hardin and Drnevich
1972). Thus, the selected mathematical form is capable of capturing
and differentiating between the contractive and dilative responses,
and can effectively incorporate the effects of strain-dependent
modulus degradation on interrelated excess pore pressure genera-
tion response. This will be illustrated further in the section that
follows.
Eq. (20) alone has limited practical use because of difficulties
associated with the prediction of γmax;N . Even though there exist
some semiempirical methods for the prediction of cyclically in-
duced shear strains as a function of a demand (CSR or FSliq )
and a capacity (DR , SPT-N, or CPT-qc ) term (e.g., Tokimatsu and
Seed 1984; Ishihara and Yoshimine 1992; Shamoto et al. 1998;
Cetin et al. 2009), their use is limited to only M w 7.5 earthquakes
(or 20 loading cycles) or requires magnitude (duration) corrections
applied on cyclic shear stresses, which themselves are another
controversial issue waiting to be resolved. Not to bring along the
uncertainties associated with magnitude corrections, and with the
intention of capturing the cyclic liquefaction and mobility re-
sponses, an alternative procedure is proposed, which eliminate
the need to use magnitude (duration) corrections. As part of this
procedure,
1. γmax;20 , defined as the maximum double-amplitude cyclic
shear strain at the end of the 20th loading cycle, is estimated
as a function of CSRSS;20;1D;1 atm (i.e., CSR value correspond-
ing to a 1D, cyclic SST performed under a confinement
pressure of 100 kPa for 20 uniform loading cycles) and
316 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:309-323.
N 1;60;CS , as recommended by Cetin et al. (2009) and repeated
in Eq. (21).
lnðγmax;20 Þ
 

0:025 · N 1;60;CS þ lnðCSRSS;20;1
D;1 atm Þ þ 2:613
¼ ln
0:004 · N 1;60;CS þ 0:001
 1:880
lim : 5 ≤ N 1;60;CS ≤ 40; 0:05 ≤ CSRSS;20;1D;1 atm
≤ 0:60 and 0% ≤ γmax ≤ 50% ð21Þ
2. γmax;N , defined as the maximum double-amplitude cyclic shear
strain at the end of Nth loading cycle, is estimated as a func-
tion of γmax;20 , γcritical , N, and DR , as given in Eq. (22).
gγmax;N ðγmax;N ; γmax;20 ; N; γcritical ; DR ; ΘÞ

¼ lnðγmax;N Þ
ln γmax;20

  θ γmax;20 θ2;γ ·lnðDR Þ 
1 1 N 1;γmax;N ·ð γcritical Þ max;N
· þ arcsin 2
1
2 π 20
 θ 
N 3;γmax;N
· þ εlnðγmax;N Þ
20
lim : N ≤ 20 ð22Þ
For the estimation of γmax;N , the use of a magnitude (duration)
ð20Þ
scaling factor is not necessary. However, equivalent number of
uniform stress cycles of the scenario earthquake at the soil site
needs to be estimated, the estimation of which is discussed
elsewhere (e.g., Liu et al. 2001; Cetin and Bilge 2012).
3. γcritical is a curve-fitting parameter and is defined as the critical
shear strain value below which (i.e., γmax;20 < γcritical ) the cyc-
lic response can be best described by cyclic mobility type of
response with the characteristics of constantly decreasing rate
of shear strain accumulation with increased number of loading
cycles. However, if γmax;20 > γcritical , a sudden increase in the
rate of shear strain accumulation is observed. The variable
γcritical is proposed to be estimated as a function of DR and
σ0v;0 , as given in Eq. (23)
gγcritical ðγcritical ; DR ; σ0v;0 ; ΘÞ ¼ lnðγcritical Þ
 
θ1;γcritical · DR

ln þ θ
ðσ0v;0 Þθ2;γcritical
3;γcritical
ð23Þ
Eqs. (20) and (22) include a random model correction term
(ε) to account for the possibilities that (1) missing descriptive
variables may exist, and (2) the adopted mathematical expres-
sion may not have the ideal functional form. It is reasonable
and also convenient to assume that ε follows a normal
distribution with a mean of zero for the aim of producing
an unbiased model (i.e., one that on the average makes cor-
rect predictions). The standard deviation of ε, denoted as σε ,
however, is unknown and must be estimated. As will be sub-
sequently illustrated, data scatter is observed to be reduced
by increasing maximum shear strain levels; thus, model
uncertainty is preferred to be a function of γmax;N itself. This
suggests a heteroscedastic σε model as expressed in Eqs. (24)
and (25), which are proposed for Eqs. (20) and (22), respec-
tively. The set of unknown coefficients of the models, there-
fore, is Θ ¼ ðθ; σε Þ


1
0:407 · γmax;N
σεlnðru;N Þ ¼ θ4;ru;N
ð24Þ lnðr u;N Þ ¼ ln 1
exp

ðγmax;N Þ þ θ5;ru;N
0:486 þ 0:025 · ln σ0v;0
ðDR =100Þ
 
0:620
· þ1  σεlnðru;N Þ ð27Þ
1 þ γmax;N
1
σεlnðγmax;N Þ ¼ θ5;γmax;N
ð25Þ
ðγmax;N Þ þ θ6;γmax;N



1 1
In forward analysis, uncertainties in the input parameters lnðγmax;N Þ ¼ ln γmax;20 · þ arcsin
(e.g., N 1;60;CS , CSR, DR , and σ0v;0 ) need to be properly con- 2 π
volved along with the model error. In doing so, addressing   1:285·ðγmax;20 Þ0:125·lnðDR Þ 
N γcritical
possible correlations among input parameters is crucial to es- × 2
1
20
timate the true level of accumulated uncertainty. For a more  
0:088 
N
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

complete illustration of how these uncertainties can be as- ·  σεlnðγmax;N Þ ð28Þ

sessed, refer to Cetin (2000). 20

Likelihood Function
where γcritical ¼ ðσ 0 Þ0:295
7:65,
0:943·DR
σεlnðru;N Þ ¼ ðγ 1
,
max;N Þ
1:375 þ1:889
For the r u;N versus γmax;N model [Eq. (20)], under the assumptions v;0

σεlnðγmax;N Þ ¼ ðγ 1
and γmax;20 can be estimated by Eq. (21).
that ðDR Þi , ðσ0v;0 Þi , and ðγmax;N Þi values of the ith test are exact max;N Þ
0:626 þ1:557

(i.e., no measurement error), and statistically independent, noting To develop an understanding of the range of model predictions,
that gð…Þ ¼ ^gð…Þ þ εi has the normal distribution with mean ^g Fig. 3 presents ru versus γmax curves for (1) DR ¼ 100% and σ0v;0 ¼
and standard deviation σε , then the likelihood function for j, k, 40 kPa (“dilative”), and (2) DR ¼ 35% and σ0v;0 ¼ 400 kPa (“con-
m, and n number of tests in which σ0v;0 were applied as 40, 80, tractive”), intended to differentiate both dilative and contractive soil
100, and 180 kPa, respectively, can be written for Eq. (20) as a responses. In the same figure, mean and mean 2σεlnðru;N Þ r u curves
function of unknown coefficients as given in Eq. (26). In are also shown corresponding to median DR and σ0v;0 values of the
Eq. (26), φ½: = standard normal probability density function. compiled database, which are estimated as 63% and 99 kPa, respec-
tively. When drawing mean þ2σεlnðru;N Þ curves, an upper limit of 1.0
is applied to estimated r u values. Similarly, in Fig. 4, by using
Y
j
wσ0 ¼40
Y
jþk
wσ 0 ¼80 Eq. (28), model boundary curves for DR equals to 60%, and cor-
Lru;N ðθ; σε Þ ¼ fφ½·g v;0 × fφ½·g v;0

i¼1 i¼jþ1
responding to three different γmax;20 =γcritical values of 0.05, 1, and
10 are overlain on the compiled data, in the γ=γ20 versus N domain.
Y
jþkþm
wσ0 ¼100
Y
jþkþmþn
wσ0 ¼180 As revealed by both of the figures, the proposed models can (1) dif-
× fφ½·g v;0 × fφ½·g v;0 ð26Þ ferentiate both dilative and contractive responses and data trends in
i¼jþkþ1 i¼jþkþmþ1
an unbiased manner, and (2) encapsulate the data pairs with the
estimated model standard deviations, which enables direct assess-
As referred to previously, tests with initial vertical confining ment of uncertainties in model predictions. To further strengthen
stresses of 100 kPa were overrepresented. To correct against this these observations, the differences between natural logarithm of
sampling disparity problem, weighting factors wσ0v;0 ¼40 , wσ0v;0 ¼80 , the recorded (test) and predicted values, referred to as residuals,
wσ0v;0 ¼100 and wσ0v;0 ¼180 were applied, as shown in the likelihood are also shown as a function of γmax;N in Figs. 5 and 6 for r u;N
function, consistent with the available literature (Manski and and γmax;N models, respectively. It is consistently illustrated by both
Lerman 1977; Hsieh et al. 1985; Cetin et al. 2002). In the estima- of the figures that a larger scatter in residuals is observed at
tion of the corrective weighting factors, most attention was given γmax;N < 1%, supporting our choice of γmax;N -dependent σε . This
not to increase the database size or available data information observation is also supported from dynamic soil response point of
(i.e., likelihood information) artificially through weighting factors. view, because r u values have a natural upper cap of 1.0, expected to
Thus, it was preferred simultaneously to downweight the overre-
presented and upweight the underrepresented, which produced
the choice of 1.193, 1.125, 0.49, and 1.193 as corrections factors
of wσ0v;0 ¼40 , wσ0v;0 ¼80 , wσ0v;0 ¼100 and wσ0v;0 ¼180 , respectively. A detailed
discussion on how to assess databases with sampling disparity
problems and weighting factors is available at Manski and Lerman
(1977) and Cetin et al. (2002). A similar methodology is also fol-
lowed for the development of γmax;N versus N model’s [Eq. (22)]
likelihood function. However, because of differences in the data-
base characteristics, weighting factors were estimated and used
as 1.281, 0.791, and 0.928 for σ0v;0 values of 40, 100, and
200 kPa, respectively.

Model Coefficients
Consistent with the maximum likelihood methodology, model co-
efficients are estimated by maximizing the likelihood functions.
The final forms of the resulting proposed models are presented
in Eqs. (27) and (28) along with  one standard deviation of the
Fig. 4. Proposed γmax;N model along with test results used in this study
model error term.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012 / 317

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:309-323.

 be reached at large strains, also suggesting a reduced model uncer-
tainty in the predictions at these large strain responses.
Last, but not least, to check the power of the proposed math-
ematical form (i.e., limit-state functions) and to see whether any
trend as a function of model input variables (descriptors) is hidden
in residuals, residuals versus DR , σ0v;0 and N plots are also prepared,
as presented in Bilge and Cetin (2009), and lack of trend as a func-
tion of any of these input variables confirmed the validity of se-
lected functional forms. Because of almost zero mean residuals
(μresidual;ru ¼ 0:001 and μresidual;γmax;N ¼ 0:085) in both relatively
small strain (γmax;N < 1%) and large strain (γmax;N > 1%) domains,
and their relatively smaller standard deviations (σresidual;ru ¼ 0:224
and σresidual;γmax;N ¼ 0:308), the proposed models are considered to
be relatively more accurate and precise.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Residuals of the proposed r u;N model

Calibration of and Comparisons with the Existing
Frameworks

For comparison purposes, the compiled database is also used to test

the performance of the stress-based models of Seed et al. (1975)
and Polito et al. (2008); strain-based models of Martin et al.
(1975), Dobry et al. (1985), and Byrne (1991); and energy-based
model of Green et al. (2000). Input parameters for these models are
adopted consistently with the recommendations and definitions
presented in the source documents. Both for comparison and
calibration purposes, for each framework, two alternatives were
followed: model implemented with (1) the original, and (2) the up-
dated model coefficients. The first alternative presents an opportu-
nity to make a judgment regarding which model, in its original
form, is the least biased, and naturally, what should be the average
calibration (correction) factors. As a result of the second assess-
ment (i.e., by comparing the “updated” models), it is possible to
decide which framework has the best limit-state model or func-
Fig. 6. Residuals of the proposed γmax;N model
tional form. In simpler terms, a framework may have a better

Table 3. Summary of Limit-State Functions, Coefficients, and Model Performances

Model parameters
e e
Model limit-state functions θ1 θ2 θ3 θ4 θ5 θ6
n h  io
This study θ ·γ
lnðr u;N Þ ¼ ln 1
exp
θ2 þθ3 ·ln 1σ0 max;N θ4
0:407
0:486 0.025 0.620 1.375 1.889

ðDR =100Þ · 1þγmax;N þ 1
v;0
 εlnðru;N Þ

Seed et al. n h  1=θ io Original 0.7 — — — — —

lnðr u;N Þ ¼ ln þ π1 · arcsin 2 NNliq
1  εlnðru;N Þ
1 1
(1975) 2 Updated 1.215 — — — 0.356 1.225

Polito et al. n h  1=ðθ ·FCþθ ·D þθ ·CSRþθ Þ o Original — 0.007397 0.01034 0.5058 — —

lnðru;N Þ ¼ ln þ π1 · arcsin 2 NNliq
1  εlnðru;N Þ Updated
1 1 2 R 3 4
(2008)a 2 —
0:013 1.197 1.675 0.425 1.250

Martin et al. n h io Original — — — — — —

ðσ0v Þ1
θ1 c ·ε2
(1975)b lnðr u;N Þ ¼ ln θ1 ·θ3 ·ðσ0v;0 Þθ2
θ1
· c1 · ðγ
c2 · εvd Þ þ γmax;N3 þcvd4 ·εvd  εlnðru;N Þ Updated 0.80 1.148 0.00011 — 0.258 0.614

Dobry et al. h i Original — — — — — —

θ1 ·θ2 ·N·ðγmax;N
θ3 Þθ4
(1985)c lnðru;N Þ ¼ ln 1þθ ·N·ðγ
θ Þθ4
 εlnðru;N Þ Updated 1.00 0.206 0.010 1.161 1.448 1.130
2 max;N 3

Byrne  n  o Original — — — — — —
ðσ0v Þ1
θ1 εvd
(1991)d lnðr u;N Þ ¼ ln θ1 ·θ3 ·ðσ0v;0 Þθ2
θ1
· c1 · γ · exp
c2 · γmax;N  εlnðru;N Þ Updated 0.80 1.229 0.00091 — 0.978 0.869

Green Mitchell nqffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffio Original 0.0139
1:021 — — — —

lnðru;N Þ ¼ ln exp½expðθ1 ·DR Þþθ2   εlnðr u;N Þ
Ws
Polito model Updated 0.017
2:016 — — 1.170 1.700
a
FC value is adopted as zero for clean sands, and θ1 was not assessed.
b
Determination of coefficients c1 to c4 is based on Martin et al. (1975).
c
Cyclic loading is applied in 1D and f ¼ 1:0.
d
Determination of coefficients c1 and c2 is based on Byrne (1991).
e
σεlnðru;N Þ ¼ θ5;r
1
.
ðγmax;N Þ
u;N þθ6;ru ;N

318 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:309-323.

 Table 4. Summary of Model Performances
γmax;N ≥ 1% 0 < γmax;N < 1% 0 < γmax;N < ∞
Method μresidual σresidual Maxresidual Minresidual μresidual σresidual Maxresidual Minresidual μresidual σresidual
This study
0:014 0.164 1.128
1:221 0.046 0.362 0.608
1:532 0.001 0.224
Seed et al. (1975) 0.525 0.357 1.818
0:923 0.353 0.506 1.690
0:667 0.456 0.431
“Updated” Seed et al. (1975) 0.267 0.225 0.651
1:799
0:196 0.403 0.988
1:032 0.081 0.383
Polito et al. (2008) 0.339 0.244 1.057
1:620
0:065 0.466 1.146
0:876 0.182 0.378
“Updated” Polito et al. (2008) 0.193 0.221 0.798
2:061
0:232 0.451 0.995
1:191 0.041 0.365
“Updated” Martin et al. (1975) 0.060 0.502 2.190
1:311 0.240 0.737 1.868
1:480 0.121 0.585
“Updated” Dobry et al. (1985) 0.052 0.195 1.335
1:886 0.145 0.648 1.223
0:706 0.070 0.357
“Updated” Byrne (1991)
0:129 0.283 1.385
1:842
0:091 0.589 1.667
1:569
0:116 0.412
Green Mitchell Polito model 0.092 0.227 1.136
1:149 0.069 0.475 0.889
0:911 0.080 0.309
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

“Updated” Green Mitchell Polito model 0.016 0.242 2.190
5:747
0:104 0.554 1.868
1:978
0:025 0.335

functional form (limit state), but poorly estimated model coeffi-
cients in its original form may reduce its accuracy.
For the “updated” models (models which have the same func-
tional form as with the original models, but with updated model
coefficients), maximum likelihood approach, as discussed previ-
ously, was used for the estimation of the model coefficients. A
summary of the functional forms and model coefficients is pre-
sented in Table 3. The performance of the models is assessed
by simple statistics (i.e., mean and standard deviation) of residuals,
and is presented in Table 4. A smaller absolute mean residual,
jμresidual;ru j, and σresidual;ru can be simply interpreted as a relatively
more accurate and precise model. A positive μresidual;ru indicates
that the model predictions of r u are lower than the values recorded
(measured) during cyclic testing (i.e., unconservatively biased).
Estimated μresidual and σresidual values are summarized in Table 4,
for 0 < γmax;N < 1% and γmax;N ≥ 1% subsets, separately. Fig. 7
illustrates the continuous variation of μresidual;ru and μresidual;γmax;N as
a function of, γupper limit as defined in Eq. (29):
Z γ
upper limit
μresidual ¼ ðResidualÞ · dγ ð29Þ
0 (global) enough to assess the performance of other types of sands,
As illustrated by this figure, the proposed frameworks produce
consistently unbiased estimates of ru and γmax;N responses in a
wide range of strain levels extending from 0.01 to more than
10%. However, as summarized in Table 4, the “original” Seed et al.
(1975), GMP (2008), and Martin et al. (1975) models consistently
Fig. 7. Variation of mean r u and γmax;N residuals with γupper limit
underpredict r u;N values in both γmax;N < 1% and γmax;N ≥ 1%
subsets. The extent of this underprediction varies in a very wide
range from 6 to 70%. The “updated” Dobry et al. (1985) model
produces approximately 7% lower values, in the average. Updated
models of GMP (2008), Seed et al. (1975), Polito et al. (2008), and
“original” Polito et al. (2008) produce smaller predictions in
γmax;N < 1% range, and higher values for the rest. In contrast,
the “updated” Byrne model produces 11% higher predictions,
in the average. As the mean of their residuals is almost zero
and their standard deviations are relatively smaller, the proposed
frameworks are concluded to be unbiased and more precise, as
compared with the updated models.
Validation of the Calibrated Models
As the basis of the proposed and “updated” available models,
CTXT and SST performed on Sacramento River, Monterey number
0=30, and Kizilirmak River sands were used. To eliminate possible
concerns regarding whether the proposed models are general
from available literature, a total number of 10 independent cyclic
tests were compiled and reserved for validation purposes. Test and
sample characteristics, and DR , σ0v;0 (or σ0c;0 ), and uncorrected test
CSR values of the validation set are presented in Table 5. It should
be noted that this data set was only reserved for validation assess-
ments, and was carefully not included in the compiled database
used for the development of both the proposed r u model and
the calibrated existing r u models.
Proposed and existing models with both original and updated
model coefficients were used to simulate each test result in the val-
idation data set. Because of lack of precise stress-strain history data,
GMP model predictions were not presented comparatively for the
validation database. Each input parameter is adopted consistently
as defined and recommended in the source documents. As illus-
trated in Fig. 8 for test V2, r u;N responses estimated by all methods
are compared with the actual response (response recorded during
cyclic testing) according to the key input parameter of each model.
A complete documentation of these comparisons can be found at
Bilge and Cetin (2009). Similarly, the accuracy and precision of the
model predictions are assessed by simple statistics of residuals
(i.e., mean, μresidual;ru and standard deviation, σresidual;ru ), which
are summarized in Table 6 for all models. Fig. 9 presents continu-
ous variation of mean residuals calculated for strain range
γmax;N ≤ γupper limit . As revealed by this figure because of consis-
tently small (almost zero) mean residual μresidual;ru and smaller
σresidual;ru values, it is concluded that the proposed models again

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012 / 319

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:309-323.

 Table 5. Summary of Database Compiled for the Validation of the Proposed Models
Number Test type Sand type DR (%) σ0v0 (or σ0c0 ) (kPa) Cyclic stress ratio Reference
V1 CTXT Ottawa 71.3 200 0.251 Vaid and Chern (1983)
V2 CTXT Ottawa 55.6 200 0.157 Vaid and Chern (1983)
V3 CTXT Gioia Tauro 35 40 0.21 Ghionna and Porcino (2006)
V4 SST Fraser River 44 200 0.10 Sriskandakumar (2003)
V5 SST Fraser River 40 100 0.10 Sriskandakumar (2003)
V6 SST Nevada 40 80 0.093 Arulmoli et al. (1992)
V7 SST Nevada 40 160 0.071 Arulmoli et al. (1992)
V8 SST Nevada 40 80 0.181 Arulmoli et al. (1992)
V9 SST Nevada 40 80 0.134 Arulmoli et al. (1992)
V10 SST Ticino 75 100 0.20 Porcino and Caridi (2007)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Comparisons of the predicted and observed cyclic responses for the validation set (test V2)

Table 6. Model Performances for the Validation Database

γmax;N ≥ 1% 0 < γmax;N < 1% 0 < γmax;N < ∞
Method μresidual σresidual Maxresidual Minresidual μresidual σresidual Maxresidual Minresidual μresidual σresidual
This study 0.036 0.086 0.280
0:067 0.059 0.107 0.320
0:210 0.045 0.095
Seed et al. (1975) 0.210 0.205 0.392
0:171 0.202 0.227 0.739
0:083 0.206 0.214
“Updated” Seed et al. (1975) 0.089 0.144 0.305
0:680
0:128 0.232 0.285
0:144
0:032 0.209
Polito et al. (2008) 0.111 0.207 0.564
0:487
0:020 0.263 0.648
0:088 0.101 0.224
“Updated” Polito et al. (2008) 0.071 0.128 0.287
0:879
0:121 0.232 0.307
0:093
0:026 0.212
“Updated” Martin et al. (1975)
1:040 0.683 0.000
2:799
2:140 0.313 0.000
2:780
1:300 0.642
“Updated” Dobry et al. (1985) 0.041 0.201 1.459
0:291 0.383 0.507 0.933
0:291 0.172 0.391
“Updated” Byrne (1991)
0:020 0.225 0.697
0:555 0.023 0.805 1.372
1:737
0:003 0.529

produced quite unbiased and the most precise predictions for
the validation database. For validation database, the “updated”
Byrne model also produced consistently unbiased predictions.
However, the model’s relatively higher standard deviations (ranks
the second highest after the “updated” Martin et al. model) unfav-
orably affect the performance of the model (especially the precision
of predictions).
Summary and Conclusions
A semi empirically based probabilistic model to investigate large
strain excess pore-water pressure response of fully saturated clean
sands is described. For this purpose, results of SST and CTXT were
studied. The resulting r u versus γ and γ versus N databases are
composed of 101 and 84 cyclic test data. Distribution of specimens
with respect to DR is relatively uniform, whereas the resulting data-
base is concluded to be biased with tests of initial confining stresses
of 100 kPa. This sampling bias is subsequently corrected in the
assessment of the proposed model coefficients. Inspired by pre-
vious studies and observational trends from test results, it is con-
cluded that the key parameters affecting excess pore-water pressure
generation response are γmax , DR , and σ0v;0 (or σ0m;0 ). Strong corre-
lation between shear and volumetric straining (e.g., Ishihara and
Yoshimine 1992; Cetin et al. 2009), and volumetric straining and

320 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:309-323.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Variation of mean r u residuals with γupper limit for the validation
database
excess pore pressure generation encouraged the use of γmax alone,
rather than together with the volumetric strain in the limit-state
model. Various functional forms have been tested, and the proposed
mathematical (functional) form was concluded to be improved, not
only because of its best fit to available data, but also because of its
power to differentiate dilative and contractive soil responses. Con-
sistent with the maximum likelihood methodology, model coeffi-
cients are estimated by maximizing the likelihood function.
For comparison purposes, the compiled database was again used
to evaluate the performance of the stress-based models of Seed et al.
(1975) and Polito et al. (2008); strain-based models of Martin et al.
(1975), Dobry et al. (1985), and Byrne (1991); and energy-based
model of Green et al. (2000). Both for comparison and calibration
purposes, for each framework, two separate sets of limit-state mod-
els were used: model implemented with (1) the original and (2) the
updated model coefficients. The model performances are assessed
by simple statistics (i.e., mean and standard deviation) of residuals
and summarized in Table 4. A smaller absolute mean residual,
jμresidual;ru j, and σresidual;ru can be simply interpreted as a relatively
less biased and more accurate model. It is concluded that the “origi-
nal” Seed et al. (1975) and GMP (2008), and “updated” Martin et al.
(1975), and Dobry et al. (1985) model predictions of r u;N are con-
sistently smaller than the test values, the extent of which varies in
the range of 5–70%. In contrast, the “updated” Byrne (1991) model
consistently overpredicts r u;N values. “Updated” models of GMP
(2008), Polito et al. (2008), Seed et al. (1975), and original model
of Polito et al. (2008) overpredict and underpredict r u;N values for
shear strain levels less than and greater than 1%, respectively. The
extent of these inconsistent predictions varies in the range from 2 to
70%. The comparison of measured and predicted responses indi-
cated that the proposed excess pore-water pressure model produced
the most unbiased response as compared with the updated models.
However, to eliminate the concerns regarding whether the proposed
models are general (global) enough to assess the performance of
other types of sands, a total number of 10 cyclic tests was studied,
and DR , σ0v;0 (or σ0c;0 ) values and variation of r u and γmax with num-
ber of stress cycles were assessed. On the basis of repeated im-
proved predictions of the proposed models for this control data
set, the proposed procedure is concluded to be a better alternative
to existing models. In addition to differentiating contractive and
dilative cyclic soil responses and improved model predictions,
the main advantage of the proposed methodology is the probabi-
listic nature of the model predictions, which enables incorporation
of the model uncertainty into pore pressure generation predictions.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012 / 321
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:309-323.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
CSR = cyclic stress ratio;
CSRSS;20;1D;1 atm = CSR value corresponding to a 1D, 20 uniform
loading cycles SST under a confinement pressure of
100 kPa (¼ 1 atm);
DR = relative density (%);
E
r = tangent modulus of the 1D unloading curve
corresponding to the initial effective vertical stress;
FC = fines content;
FSliq = factor of safety against liquefaction;
M w = moment magnitude;
N = number of loading cycles applied in test;
N liq = number of cycles to liquefaction;
N 1;60;CS = overburden, fines, and the procedure-corrected
standard penetration test (SPT) blow counts;
PEC = pseudo-energy capacity;
r u = excess pore-water pressure ratio;
r u;N = excess pore-water pressure ratio at Nth loading
cycle;
W s = energy dissipated per unit volume of soil divided by
the initial effective mean confining stress;
Δu = increase in pore-water pressure;
Δεvd = change in volumetric strain attributable to cyclic
shearing;
εa = axial strain;
εvd = accumulated volumetric strain;
γc = cyclic shear strain;
γcritical = critical shear strain (%);
γmax = maximum double-amplitude shear strain (%);
γmax;20 = maximum double-amplitude shear strain at 20th
loading cycle (%);
γmax;N = maximum double-amplitude shear strain at Nth
loading cycle (%);
σ0c = effective confinement stress;
σ0c;0 = initial effective confinement stress;
σ0m = mean effective stress;
σ0m;0 = initial mean effective stress;
σ0v = vertical effective stress;
σ0v;0 = initial vertical effective stress; and
τ = cyclic shear stress.
References
Arulmoli, K., Muraleetharan, K. K., Hosain, M. M., and Fruth, L. S.
(1992). “VELACS laboratory testing program, soil data report.” Rep.
to the National Science Foundation, The Earth Technology Corpora-
tion, Irvine, CA, Washington, D.C.
Bilge, H. T. (2005). “Volumetric and deviatoric strain behavior of cohesion-
less soils under cyclic loading.” M.Sc. thesis, Middle East Technical
Univ., Ankara, Turkey.
Bilge, H. T., and Cetin, K. O. (2009). “Cyclic large strain and induced pore
pressure response of saturated clean sands.” Rep. No. METU/GTENG
09/12-01, Middle East Technical Univ. Soil Mech. & Foundation Eng.
Research Center, Ankara, Turkey. 〈www.ce.metu.edu.tr/~onder/
Publications/reports/T_10.pdf〉.
Booker, J. R., Rahman, M. S., and Seed, H. B. (1976). “GADFLEA—a
computer program for the analysis of pore pressure generation and dis-
sipation during cyclic or earthquake loading.” EERC Report No. 76-24,
Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
Boulanger, R. W., Seed, R. B., Chan, C. K., Seed, H. B., and Sousa, J.
(1991). “Liquefaction behavior of saturated sands under uni-directional
and bi-directional monotonic and cyclic simple shear loading.” Geotech-
nical Report No. UCB/GT/91-08, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
 Byrne, P. M. (1991). “A cyclic shear-volume coupling and pore pressure
model for sand.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in
Geotechnical Earthquake and Soil Dynamics, 47–55.
Cetin, K. O. (2000). “Reliability-based assessment of seismic soil liquefac-
tion initiation hazard.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of California, Berkeley,
CA.
Cetin, K. O., and Bilge, H. T. (2012) “Performance-based assessment of
magnitude (duration) scaling factors.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
138(3), 324–334.
Cetin, K. O., Bilge, H. T., Wu, J., Kammerer, A. M., and Seed, R. B. (2009).
“Probabilistic models for cyclic straining of saturated clean sands.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 135(3), 371–386.
Cetin, K. O., Der Kiureghian, A., and Seed, R. B. (2002). “Probabilistic
models for the initiation of seismic soil liquefaction.” Struct. Saf.,
24(1), 67–82.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Chameau, J. L., and Clough, G. W. (1983). “Probabilistic pore pressure
analysis for seismic loading.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 109(4), 507–524.
Chang, W., Rathje, E. M., Stokoe II, K. H., and Hazirbaba, K. (2007). “In
situ pore-pressure generation behavior of liquefiable sand.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 133(8), 921–931.
Das, B. M. (1983). Fundamentals of soil dynamics, Elsevier, New York,
414.
Davis, R. O., and Berrill, J. B. (1982). “Energy dissipation and seismic
liquefaction in sands.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 10(1), 59–68.
Davis, R. O., and Berrill, J. B. (2001). “Pore pressure and dissipated energy
in earthquakes—Field verification.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
127(3), 269–274.
De Alba, P., Chan, C. K., and Seed, H. B. (1975). “Determination of
soil liquefaction characteristics by large scale laboratory tests.” EERC
Rep. No. 75-14, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
Dobry, R. (1985). “Liquefaction of soils during earthquakes.” Rep. No.
CETS-EE-001, National Research Council (NRC), Committee on
Earthquake Engineering, Washington, DC.
Dobry, R., Ladd, R. S., Yokel, F. Y., Chung, R. M., and Powell, D. (1982).
“Prediction of pore-water pressure buildup and liquefaction of sands
during earthquakes by the cyclic strain method.” National Bureau of
Standards Building Science Series 138, National Bureau of Standards,
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
Dobry, R., Pierce, W. G., Dyvik, R., Thomas, G. E., and Ladd, R. S.
(1985). “Pore pressure model for cyclic straining of sand.” Research
Rep. 1985-06, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Eggzelos, D. N. (2004). “Experimental and theoretical investigation of soil
behavior under cyclic loading.” Ph.D. dissertation, National Technical
Univ. of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Elgamal, A., Yang, Z., Parra, E., and Ragheb, A. (2003). “Modeling of
cyclic mobility in saturated cohesionless soils.” Int. J. Plast., 19(6),
883–905.
Evans, M. D. (1987). “Undrained cyclic triaxial testing of gravels: The ef-
fect of membrane compliance.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of California,
Berkeley, CA.
Evans, M. D., and Rollins, K. M. (1999). “Developments in gravelly soil
liquefaction and dynamic behavior.” Physics and mechanics of soil
liquefaction, P. L. Lade and J. A. Yamamuro, eds., Balkema, Rotterdam,
Netherlands, 91–102.
Finn, W. D. L., Lee, K., and Martin, G. R. (1977). “An effective stress
model for liquefaction.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 103(6), 517–533.
Finn, W. D. L., Martin, G. R., and Byrne, P. M. (1976). “Seismic response
and liquefaction of sands.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 102(8), 841–856.
Fukutake, K., and Ohtsuki, A. (1995). “Three-dimensional liquefaction
analysis of partially improved ground.” Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on Earth-
quake Geotechnical Engineering, Balkema, Brookfield, VT, 863–868.
Ghionna, V. N., and Porcino, D. (2006). “Liquefaction resistance of undis-
turbed and reconstituted samples of a natural coarse sand from
undrained cyclic triaxial tests.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132(2),
194–202.
Green, R. A. (2001). “Energy-based evaluation and remediation of liquefi-
able soils.” Ph.D. dissertation, Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA.
Green, R. A., Mitchell, J. K., and Polito, C. P. (2000). “An energy-based
excess pore-water pressure generation model for cohesionless soils.”
322 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:309-323.
Proc., John Booker Memorial Symp.—Developments in Theoretical
Geomechanics, D. W. Smith and J. P. Carter, eds., Balkema, Rotterdam,
Netherlands, 383–390.
Hardin, B. O., and Drnevich, V. P. (1972). “Shear modulus and damping in
soils: Design equations and curves.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 98(7),
667–692.
Hashash, Y. M. A. (2009). “DEEPSOIL V3.5 1-D nonlinear and equivalent
linear wave propagation analysis program for geotechnical seismic site
response analysis of soil deposits.” User Manual and Tutorial, Dept. of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Urbana, IL.
Hazirbaba, K. (2005). “Pore pressure generation characteristics of sands
and silty sands: A strain approach.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Texas,
Austin, TX.
Hsieh, D., Manski, C. F., and McFadden, D. (1985). “Estimation of
response probabilities from augmented retrospective observations.” J.
Am. Stat. Assoc., 80(391), 651–662.
Hsu, H. L. (1995). “Study on the relationship between shear work and
pore-water pressure for saturated sand in undrained test.” First Int.
Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, K. Ishihara, ed.,
Vol. 1, Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 301–307.
Hynes, M. E. (1988). “Pore pressure generation characteristics of gravel
under undrained cyclic loading.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of California,
Berkeley, CA.
Ishihara, K. (1985). “Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes.”
Proc., 11th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., Taylor & Francis Group,
London, 321–376.
Ishihara, K. (1993). “Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes.”
Geotechnique, 43(3), 351–415.
Ishihara, K. (1996). “Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechniques.” Oxford
Engineering Science Series, Clarendon Press, New York, 360.
Ishihara, K., and Yoshimine, M. (1992). “Evaluation of settlements in
sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes.” Soils Found.,
32(1), 173–188.
Kammerer, A. M. (2002). “Undrained response of Monterey 0=30
sand under multi-directional cyclic shear loading conditions.” Ph.D.
dissertation, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
Konrad, J. M. (1988). “Interpretation of flat plate dilatometer tests in sands
in terms of the state parameter.” Geotechnique, 38(2), 263–277.
Law, K. T., Cao, Y. L., and He, G. N. (1990). “An energy approach for
assessing seismic liquefaction potential.” Can. Geotech. J., 27(3),
320–329.
Lee, K., and Albaisa, A. (1974). “Earthquake induced settlements in satu-
rated sands.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 100(4), 387–405.
Liu, A. H., Stewart, J. P., Abrahamson, N. A., and Moriwaki, Y. (2001).
“Equivalent number of uniform stress cycles for soil liquefaction analy-
sis.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127(12), 1017–1026.
Liyanapathirana, D. S., and Poulos, H. G. (2002). “A numerical model
for dynamic soil liquefaction analysis.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.,
22(9–12), 1007–1015.
Manski, C. F., and Lerman, S. R. (1977). “The estimation of choice prob-
abilities from choice-based samples.” Econometrica, 45(8), 1977–1988.
Marcuson, W. F., Hynes, M. E., and Franklin, A. G. (1990). “Evaluation
and use of residual strength in seismic safety analysis of embankments.”
Earthquake Spectra, 6(3), 529–572.
Martin, G. R., Finn, W. D. L., and Seed, H. B. (1975). “Fundamentals
of liquefaction under cyclic loading.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 101(5),
423–438.
Matasovic, N. (2006). “D-MOD_2—a computer program for seismic re-
sponse analysis of horizontally layered soil deposits, earthfill dams,
and solid waste landfills.” User’s Manual, GeoMotions, LLC, Lacey,
WA, 20.
Matasovic, N., and Vucetic, M. (1993). “Seismic response of horizontally
layered soil deposits.” Rep. No. ENG 93-182, School of Engineering
and Applied Science, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
Nemat-Nasser, S., and Shokooh, A. (1979). “A unified approach to densi-
fication and liquefaction of cohesionless sand in cyclic shearing.” Can.
Geotech. J., 16(4), 659–678.
Oda, M., Kawamoto, K., Suzuki, K., Fujimori, H., and Sato, M. (2001).
“Microstructural interpretation on reliquefaction of saturated granular
 soils under cyclic loading.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127(5),
416–423.
Park, S. S., and Byrne, P. M. (2004). “Practical constitutive model for soil
liquefaction.” 9th Int. Symp. on Numerical Models in Geomechanics
(NUMOG IX), Taylor & Francis Group, London, 181–186.
Park, I. J., and Desai, C. S. (2000). “Cyclic behavior of sand using disturbed
state concept.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 126(9), 834–846.
Pastor, M., Zienkiewicz, O. C., and Chan, A. H. C. (1990). “Generalized
plasticity and the modeling of soil behavior.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth-
ods Geomech., 14(3), 151–190.
Polito, C. P., Green, R. A., and Lee, J. (2008). “Pore pressure generation
models for sands and silty soils subjected to cyclic loading.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 134(10), 1490–1500.
Porcino, D., and Caridi, G. (2007). “Pre- and post-liquefaction response of
sand in cyclic simple shear.” GEO-Denver 2007: New Peaks in Geo-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
technics, Dynamic Response and Soil Properties (GSP 160), Denver.
Prakash, S. (1981). Soil dynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 419.
Prevost, J. H. (1985). “A simple plasticity theory for frictional cohesionless
soils.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 4(1), 9–17.
Riemer, M. F., Gookin, W. B., Bray, J. D., and Arango, I. (1994). “Effects
of loading frequency and control on the liquefaction behavior of
clean sands.” Geotechnical Eng. Report No. UCB/GT/94-07, Univ.
of California, Berkeley, CA.
Seed, H. B., Martin, P. P., and Lysmer, J. (1975). “The generation and dis-
sipation of pore-water pressures during soil liquefaction.” Geotechnical
Report No. EERC 75-26, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
Shamoto, Y., Zhang, J., and Tokimatsu, K. (1998). “New charts for predict-
ing large residual post-liquefaction ground deformation.” Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Eng., 17(7–8), 427–438.
Silver, M. L., and Seed, H. B. (1971). “Volume changes in sands during
cyclic loading.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 97(9), 1171–1182.
Sriskandakumar, S. (2003). “Characterization of cyclic loading response of
air-pluviated Fraser River sand for validation of numerical models.”
M.Sc. thesis, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012 / 323
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:309-323.
Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H. B. (1984). “Simplified procedures of the evalu-
ation of settlements in clean sands.” Rep. No. UCB/GT-84/16, Univ. of
California, Berkeley, CA.
Tokimatsu, K., and Yoshimi, Y. (1983). “Empirical correlation of soil lique-
faction based on SPT N-value and fines content.” Soils Found., 23(4),
56–74.
Ueng, T-S., Sun, C-W., and Chen, C-W. (2004). “Definition of fines and
liquefaction resistance of Maoluo River sand.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake
Eng., 24(9–10), 745–750.
Vaid, Y. P., and Chern, J. C. (1983). “Effect of static shear on resistance of
liquefaction.” Soils Found., 23(1), 47–60.
Vucetic, M., and Dobry, R. (1986). “Pore pressure build-up and liquefac-
tion at level sandy sites during earthquakes.” Research Rep. CE-86-3,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Wang, G. J., Takemura, J., and Kuwano, J. (1997). “Evaluation of excess
pore-water pressures of intermediate soils due to cyclic loading by
energy method.” Computer methods and advances in geomechanics,
J. X. Yuan, ed., Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 2215–2220.
Wang, J., and Kavazanjian, E. (1985). “Pore-water pressure development in
non-uniform cyclic triaxial tests.” John A. Blume Earthquake Engineer-
ing Center Rep. No. 73, Technical Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA.
Wang, Z. L., Dafalias, Y. F., and Shen, C. K. (1990). “Bounding surface
hypoplasticity model for sand.” J. Eng. Mech., 116(5), 983–1001.
Wu, J., Seed, R. B., and Pestana, J. M. (2003). “Liquefaction triggering
and post liquefaction deformations of Monterey 0=30 sand under
uni-directional cyclic simple shear loading.” Geotechnical Engineering
Research Rep. No. UCB/GE-2003/01, Univ. of California, Berkeley,
CA.
Yamazaki, F., Towhata, I., and Ishihara, K. (1985). “Numerical model for
liquefaction problem under multi-directional shearing on horizontal
plane.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics,
Vol. 1, Taylor & Francis Group, London, 399–406.