Liu 2015

International Journal of Geomechanics.
Submitted July 28, 2012; accepted August 13, 2013;

posted ahead of print August 15, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000350
Experimental Study on Effects of Initial Conditions on Liquefaction
of Saturated and Unsaturated Sand
Chunyang Liu, Ph.D., P.E., M. ASCE1; and Jiting Xu2

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GRAINGER ENGINEERING LIB E on 09/06/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
t
ip
Soil liquefaction is one of the most common geohazards that is often the root cause of
d cr
damage and disruption to the civil infrastructure systems. It has been tacitly considered to only
occur in loose saturated sand or low plasticity silts. A series of strain-controlled cyclic loading
te s
di nu
tests on saturated and unsaturated Nevada sand has been conducted to reveal the fact that not
only saturated soils, but also unsaturated soils can be liquefied when certain test conditions are
ye a
satisfied. In this laboratory study, different initial conditions of soil specimens are tested and
op M
these conditions include: relative density (30% and 70%), effective confining stress (50 kPa and
200 kPa) and degree of saturation (90%, 95% and 100%). All specimens, except the one with
C ted
70% relative density, 200 kPa confining stress and 90% degree of saturation, reach liquefaction
at the end of the tests. Although it is well established that liquefaction resistance increases with
ot p
relative density and confining stress and decreases with degree of saturation, some quantitative
N ce
guidance to evaluate liquefaction of soils, especially under their unsaturated states is provided
Ac
from this study. These guidelines can serve as the basis to transform current geotechnical design
procedure when unsaturated soils are involved.
1
Assistant Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of South Carolina,
Columbia, SC 29208; Telephone: (803)777-7160; E-mail: liuch@cec.sc.edu
2
Former Graduate Student, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of South Carolina,
Columbia, SC 29208
Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Int. J. Geomech.
International Journal of Geomechanics. Submitted July 28, 2012; accepted August 13, 2013;
KEY WORDS: Soil liquefaction; Relative density; Effective confining stress; Degree of
saturation; Cyclic loading

t
ip
d cr
te s
di nu
ye a
op M
C ted
ot p
N ce
Ac
Int. J. Geomech.
Introduction
It has been tacitly assumed that liquefaction only occurs in saturated sands or low
plasticity silts when soils lose their shear strength and stiffness during monotonic or cyclic
loading. Soil liquefaction is one of the most important geohazards that causes tremendous
t
ip
damage (Kramer 1996). However, very limited field evidence, laboratory tests and numerical
d cr
simulations show that liquefaction could occur in unsaturated soils. For example, according to
Uzuoka et al. (2005), the unsaturated volcanic sandy soil on a slope surface was observed to
te s
di nu
behave as a liquid during the 2003 earthquake in Miyagi, Japan. Additional field evidence on
liquefaction in unsaturated soils has been observed in gas-charged sediments in coastal or

ye a
estuarine regions (Chillarige et al. 1997; Grozic et al. 2000) and wave-induced unsaturated soil
op M
response in layered seabed soils (Hsu et al. 1995). While laboratory studies on liquefaction of
C ted
unsaturated soils have achieved some progress (Unno et al. 2008), particularly with regard to
the role of degree of saturation, the combined effects with other factors such as initial relative
ot p
density, effective confining stress, and loading path have yet to be studied. Other available
N ce
laboratory studies (e.g. Sherif et al. 1977; Martin et al. 1978; Yoshimi et al. 1989; Xia and Hu
1991; Fourie et al. 2001; Okamura et al. 2006; Okamura and Soga 2006; Bouferra et al. 2007) have
Ac
also been primarily focused on studying the effect of one factor, i.e. degree of saturation on
liquefaction resistance of unsaturated soils. To evaluate the potential of liquefaction of
unsaturated soils with different initial soil properties and loading conditions, a comprehensive
numerical model is essential. Recently, Bian and Shahrour (2009) and Liu and Muraleetharan
(2009, 2012a, b, c) have developed numerical models to study the mechanical behavior of
unsaturated sandy soils with the emphasis being placed on the conditions to trigger
Int. J. Geomech.
liquefaction. The models demonstrated that unsaturated sands can be liquefied when certain
initial and loading conditions are satisfied. However, their model performance, especially the
possibility of liquefaction of initially unsaturated soils has not been systematically verified by
laboratory tests yet.
t
As described above, field observations and numerical analyses have clearly revealed that
ip
liquefaction can occur in unsaturated soils. Laboratory studies have shown that the degree of
d cr
saturation plays an important role in determining liquefaction in unsaturated soils, but the
te s
combined effects with other factors, such as initial relative density and effective confining stress
di nu
have yet to be studied. In addition, there is ambiguity in the current understanding of
ye a
liquefaction in unsaturated soils: on one hand, researchers try to decrease the degree of
op M
saturation as a countermeasure to prevent liquefaction (e.g. Ishihara et al. 2003; Yegian et al.
2007; Okamura et al. 2011); on the other hand, liquefaction still occurs in unsaturated soils
C ted
according to field observations and numerical analyses. Therefore, a comprehensive laboratory
test plan was proposed and conducted to systematically study the effects of initial conditions,
ot p
N ce
including degree of saturation, relative density, and effective confining stress on liquefaction of
unsaturated sand to advance current understanding on the mechanical behavior, especially

Ac
liquefaction of unsaturated sand. To achieve this goal, a series of undrained cyclic loading
triaxial tests was conducted to systematically study and compare the mechanical behavior of
saturated and unsaturated sand. The main purpose of this study is: 1) to demonstrate that
unsaturated soils can be liquefied when certain initial and loading conditions are satisfied; 2) to
evaluate the performance differences between saturated and unsaturated soils due to degree of
Int. J. Geomech.
saturation, relative density, and confining stress; and 3) to provide some guidance to evaluate
site conditions when unsaturated soils are involved.
Stress Variable of Unsaturated Soils

To study liquefaction of unsaturated soils, the selection of stress variable is necessary
t
ip
and important. Liquefaction is well defined for saturated soils due to the well-accepted effective
d cr
stress concept (Terzaghi 1936; Lade and de Boer 1997). However, for unsaturated soils, the
existence of such an effective stress concept is still being researched, although many equations
te s
di nu
have been developed (e.g. Bishop 1959; Muraleetharan and Wei 1999; Murray 2002; Li 2003;
Khalili et al. 2005). Among those equations, other terminologies, such as intergranular stress
ye a
instead of effective stress are defined to differentiate the definition of stress variables between
op M
saturated and unsaturated soils. For the convenience of discussion, effective stress is used for
C ted
both saturated and unsaturated soils in this paper. From available literature, most of the
effective stress equations for unsaturated soils share the same form as Bishop’s equation (1959).
ot p
Therefore, the Bishop’s equation is used to measure the effective stress of unsaturated soils and
N ce
it is given as:
σc σ uaI F scI σ uaI F ua uw I (1)

Ac
Where σc is the effective stress tensor; σ is the total stress tensor; F is the Bishop’s
parameter; sc ua uw is matric suction, which is defined as the difference between pore air
pressure ua and pore water pressure u w ; I is the second order unit tensor. Specifically, the
Bishop’s parameter F is defined as the degree of saturation S r in this study. Similar to the
definition of liquefaction of saturated soils, the effective stress should become zero due to
Int. J. Geomech.
accumulated pore air pressure and pore water pressure if liquefaction does occur in
unsaturated soils. According to Eq. (1), the necessary condition for unsaturated soils to reach a
complete liquefaction state is:

1
p σ1 σ 2 σ3 ua uw (2)
3
t
ip
Where p is the mean total stress; σ1 , σ 2 and σ 3 are the principal total stresses.
d cr
In a fully undrained triaxial cyclic loading test, sand particles will slip on each other
te s
causing volume change and the excess pore water pressure in saturated or unsaturated soil will
di nu
start to change. The rearrangement of soil structure may result in the increase of pore water and
pore air pressures. Consequently, the evaluation of the excess pore water or pore air pressure
ye a
op M
generated by cyclic loading is of great importance. To study the liquefaction of saturated or
unsaturated soils, another parameter, i.e. the excess pore water pressure ratio Ru is defined as
C ted
below:
'uw
Ru (3)
ot p
p'
N ce
Where 'uw is the excess pore water pressure due to cyclic shearing and p ' is the
Ac
mean effective stress. Note that some researchers (e.g. El Shamy et al. 2010) only consider the
excess pore pressure ratio along the vertical direction and this treatment is specifically useful
when liquefaction potential of field conditions is evaluated. In this laboratory study through
triaxial tests on isotropically consolidated specimens, the ratio between excess pore water
pressure and mean effective stress change is adopted. When the ratio approaches the value of
1.0, it means that the excess pore water or air pressure counterbalances the effective stress and
Int. J. Geomech.
liquefaction occurs. Sometimes, the temporary state of a soil specimen to have zero effective
stress is referred to initial liquefaction (e.g. Boulanger and Idriss 2004). In this study,
liquefaction is defined in a general sense as the loss of strength and does not exclusively refer to
flow-type deformation or cyclic mobility.
t
ip
Laboratory Tests on Nevada Sand
d cr
Material Properties
te s
Nevada sand, which has been extensively researched through the VELACS project (e.g.
di nu
Arulmoli et al. 1992; Popescu and Prevost 1993), was selected for this study. Nevada sand is a
ye a
foundry sand from Simplot Silica Products in Overton, NV. Its basic information was measured
op M
as: Gs 2.69 , emax 0.97 , emin 0.54 , Umax 1753 kg / m3 , Umin 1378 kg / m3 , D50 0.115 mm ,
Cu 1.7 and Cc 0.96 . According to USCS, Nevada sand is classified as poorly graded fine
C ted
sand (SP). Soil water characteristic curves (SWCCs) were also measured from soil specimens
under different relative densities, i.e. 30% and 70%. The two sets of SWCCs consistently showed
ot p
N ce
that the air-entry value (AEV) for Nevada sand is around 3.0~5.0 kPa and the relative density
did not affect the AEV significantly.

Ac
Specimen Preparation and Triaxial Tests
ELDyn from GDS was used to run all triaxial tests. Both saturated and unsaturated
specimens were cylindrical specimens with a diameter of 50.8 mm and height of 101.6 mm. The
moist tamping method was used to prepare the saturated and unsaturated specimens. Each
specimen was prepared by tamping the sand in four layers. The top of each layer was scarified
before the introduction of the next layer to ensure a good connection between the adjacent
Int. J. Geomech.
layers. After the last layer was compacted to the prescribed density, a filter paper, a porous
stone (Note: the porous stone for saturated and unsaturated soil tests were different and the one
for unsaturated soil tests had an AEV of 300 kPa), and the top cap were put in place. A very low
suction (e.g. 3 kPa) was then applied from the top to keep the specimen upright until a low cell
t
pressure was applied after the chamber was placed in place and filled with water. Standard
ip
presaturation and back pressure saturation procedures were next conducted. Once B-values
d cr
reached 0.95 or higher, the specimens were assumed to be fully saturated and the specimens
te s
were isotropically consolidated. After specimens were consolidated under given effective
di nu
confining stress, all drainage lines were closed and saturated specimens were ready for shear
ye a
tests. However, for unsaturated soil specimens, the initial degree of saturation needed to be
op M
adjusted before shearing. The initial degree of saturation was tuned by applying a proper pore
air pressure, which was equivalent to apply suction. According to the measured SWCCs, the
C ted
suction was tentatively selected based on the target degree of saturation on the drying
boundary curve. By applying the suction, some pore water was pushed out of the specimen. To
ot p
N ce
control the initial degree of saturation, the drained water volume was closely monitored while
the suction was applied to the triaxial specimens. Then, the drainage lines, including both the
Ac
back pressure line and the pore air line, were closed before cyclic shear loading tests started. For
the triaxial tests, three initial factors, i.e. relative densities (i.e. 30% and 70%), effective confining
stress (i.e. 50 kPa and 200 kPa) and degree of saturation (i.e. 90%, 95% and 100%) were
considered. The test matrix is presented in Table 1. In total, 8 triaxial tests on unsaturated
Nevada sand and 4 tests on saturated specimens were conducted. The initial conditions before
shearing for saturated and unsaturated specimens are given in Table 2.
Int. J. Geomech.
Although the majority of research on soil liquefaction was conducted by running stress-
controlled cyclic loading tests (e.g. Seed and Idriss 1971; Xia and Hu 1991; Okamura and Soga
2006), strain-controlled tests were not uncommon (e.g. Seed and Lee 1966; Dobry et al. 1982;
Kazama et al. 2000; Unno et al. 2008). As discussed by Kazama et al. (2000), stress-controlled
t
triaxial tests to study liquefaction have several drawbacks: (1) it is difficult in obtaining the
ip
strength of the soil subjected to large stress loading in a few cycles; (2) the strain rate during
d cr
tests keep changing; (3) liquefaction behavior at large strain levels is not reliable; and (4) it is
te s
difficult in distinguishing liquefaction of sandy soil with a sudden loss of shear strength from
di nu
the fatigue failure of cohesive soil. Some other advantages associated with strain-controlled
ye a
tests are summarized in Kramer (1996). Especially, the data acquisition software for ELDyn
op M
requires the input of the load stiffness value for any stress- or load-controlled tests. The
laboratory test results are very sensitive to the stiffness value and there has been noise at the
C ted
start of the cyclic stage followed by a significant asymmetrical loading pattern, even the stress
path is set to be symmetrical. Based on these reasons, strain-controlled cyclic undrained triaxial
ot p
N ce
tests on saturated and unsaturated Nevada sand were conducted in this study. Following the
work by Unno et al. (2008), the axial strain path of sinusoidal wave is given in Figure 1. Each
Ac
axial strain was repeated 10 cycles before the strain was increased to a larger value. The loading
frequency was selected to be 0.005 Hz to minimize the loading rate effects. The shearing
procedure was stopped whenever the effective stress reached zero, even when the axial strain
was smaller than 2%.
Measurement and Calculation of Stress-Strain Variables
Int. J. Geomech.
For saturated soil tests, no volumetric strain was observed due to the undrained test
conditions. The cell pressure, back pressure, axial force and axial strain were automatically
measured and these stress-strain variables were used to calculate other variables, such as
effective stress, deviator stress and deviator strain. For unsaturated soil tests, although all tests
t
were also conducted under fully undrained conditions, the volumetric strain was not negligible
ip
due to the inclusion of pore air, which was highly compressible. The total volume change of the
d cr
specimen was assumed to be the volume change of pore air, which was calculated based on the
te s
ideal gas equation since the initial pore air pressure and volume inside the specimen were
di nu
known and the pore air pressure during tests was measured continuously. This procedure
ye a
assumed that the environmental temperature was kept constant and the amount of pore air
op M
dissolved into pore water was negligible.
Triaxial Test Results

C ted
The relationships between effective stress and deviator stress for the 12 strain-controlled
ot p
undrained cyclic shearing tests are presented in Figures 2 and 3. In the figures, a special
N ce
notation is used to represent the initial conditions of each specimen. For example, Dr30C50Sr100
in Figure 2 stands for the specimen with initial relative density of 30%, effective confining stress
Ac
of 50 kPa and initial degree of saturation of 100%.
For the convenience of discussion, test results on deviator stress vs. axial strain and pore
water pressure vs. time from one saturated specimen are reported in Figure 4, while deviator
stress vs. axial strain, pore air/water pressure vs. time and void ratio vs. axial strain from one
unsaturated specimen are presented in Figure 5. In Figure 4, the test results from the saturated
soil specimen with 70% relative density and 50 kPa confining stress are presented. The data
Int. J. Geomech.
collected from the unsaturated soil specimen, i.e. relative density of 30%, confining stress of 200
kPa and degree of saturation of 95% is shown in Figure 5. Similar curves for other specimens are
omitted here for conciseness. Because excess pore water pressure is closely related to soil
liquefaction, the relationships between the excess pore water pressure ratio and the loading
t
cycles for all specimens are presented in Figures 6 and 7.
ip
Data Analysis
d cr
In Figure 2, it is obvious that all specimens of 30% relative density with a wide range of
te s
di nu
effective confining stresses (i.e. 50 kPa and 200 kPa) and degree of saturations (i.e. 100%, 95%
and 90%) can reach liquefaction. It clearly shows that not only saturated specimens, but also
ye a
unsaturated specimens can be liquefied. This may be one of the most important extensions of
op M
current understanding on soil liquefaction via laboratory study. From the test results of
C ted
specimens of 30% relative density and 50 kPa effective confining stress shown in Figure
2(a.1)~(a.3), it is obvious that more loading cycles are needed to liquefy the specimens as the
ot p
degree of saturation gets lower. Although the number of loading cycles required to liquefy the
N ce
specimens does not change too much when the degree of saturation decreases from 100% to
95%, this number has been significantly increased as the degree of saturation drops to 90%.
Ac
Similar trend can be observed from the test results from specimens of 30% relative density and
200 kPa effective confining stress, which are shown in Figure 2(b.1)~(b.3). Quantitatively
speaking, liquefaction resistance of soils specimens with 30% relative density increases as
degree of saturation decreases. When Figure 2(a.1)~(a.3) are compared with Figure 2(b.1)~(b.3),
it can be concluded that liquefaction resistance increases with effective confining stress for 30%
relative density specimens. Also, when the effective confining stress is higher, the specimens
Int. J. Geomech.
experience much higher deviator stresses under same axial strains. Although different axial
strains are applied, all the specimens shown in Figure 2 reach a steady state, which represents
zero residual strength at the end of the tests due to redistribution of soil particles.
The relationships of effective stress vs. deviator stress for 70% relative density specimens
t
are reported in Figure 3. Generally speaking, specimens with high relative density most likely
ip
experience dilation during shearing and therefore an increase in effective stress. From this
d cr
sense, it is generally accepted that soils with high relative densities are not susceptible to
te s
liquefaction. However, in a more strict sense, when dense soil specimens are sheared, the soil
di nu
skeleton will be first compressed and then dilated, provided the shear strain is large enough.
ye a
When dense soils are subjected to undrained cyclic shearing with small shear strains, which is
op M
in fact the case of current study, excess pore water pressure can be generated in each loading
cycle and the soil specimen will experience softening and the accumulation of deformations. If
C ted
the number of cyclic loading is large enough, the dense soil specimens will eventually reach a
zero effective stress state and liquefaction can be reached. In Figure 3, all dense specimens
ot p
N ce
except the one with 200 kPa confining stress and 90% degree of saturation reach liquefaction at
the end of the tests. Similar to loose specimens shown in Figure 2, all dense specimens reach the
Ac
steady state. The cyclic loading definitely brings the stress paths of all specimens except
Dr70C200Sr90 to liquefaction failure after strain softening reduces shearing resistance to the
steady state.
In Figure 4(a), the relationship between axial strain vs. deviator stress of saturated soil
specimen with 70% relative density and 50 kPa effective confining stress is demonstrated. It is
very clear that the shear modulus of the specimen keeps decreasing with cyclic shearing. At the
Int. J. Geomech.
end of the test, the specimen loses its shear strength and liquefaction occurs. The loss of shear
resistance is directly caused by the accumulation of pore water pressure, which is shown in
Figure 4(b). Even for dense specimens, pore water pressure starts to build up very fast. As
discussed earlier, this behavior can only occur when the shearing strain is very small.
t
In Figure 5(a), the shear modulus of the specimen with 30% relative density, 95% degree
ip
of saturation and 200 kPa effective confining stress decreases with cyclic shearing, which is
d cr
similar to the saturated specimen presented in Figure 4(a). During the test on unsaturated soil
te s
specimens, the accumulations of pore water pressure and pore air pressure are simultaneous as
di nu
shown in Figure 4(b). The difference between pore air pressure and pore water pressure is
ye a
actually the matric suction. At the end of the test, matric suction becomes zero and both
op M
pressures become equivalently high enough to counterbalance the total stress and liquefaction
occurs (see Eq. (2)). As shown in Figure 4(b), matric suction keeps decreasing as the specimen
C ted
becomes dense during cyclic shearing and further the degree of saturation increases due to its
undrained test condition. The change of void ratio with time is presented in Figure 5(c). It
ot p
N ce
clearly demonstrates that the specimen of 30% relative density keeps becoming dense and this is
why the pore pressures are able to build up during the test.
Ac
Due to the importance of excess pore water pressure in studying soil liquefaction, the
relationships of the excess pore water pressure ratio vs. number of cyclic loading for all
specimens are reported in Figures 6 and 7. As shown in Figures 6(a.1)~(a.3), the number of
cyclic loading to reach liquefaction keeps increasing as the degree of saturation decreases. It
takes less than 10 cycles (point A) to liquefy the saturated specimen of 30% and 50 kPa confining
stress. However, the numbers of cyclic loading have been increased to around 14 (point B) and
Int. J. Geomech.
30 (point C) for specimens with 95% and 90% degree of saturations, respectively. When a higher
confining stress, i.e. 200 kPa is applied, the numbers of cyclic loading to liquefy the specimens
have consistently increased. The numbers of cyclic loading to reach liquefaction become 12
(point D), 18 (point E) and 36 (point F) when the degree of saturations are 100%, 95% and 90%,
t
respectively. It is also noted that the excess pore water pressure builds up must faster during
ip
shearing when the degree of saturation is higher.
d cr
In Figure 7, the curves for excess pore water pressure ratio vs. number of cyclic loading
te s
of dense specimens are reported. It is interesting to notice that all dense specimens with 50 kPa
di nu
confining stress and two of three specimens with 200 kPa confining stress reach liquefaction at
ye a
the end of the tests (points G ~ K). However, the dense specimen Dr70C200Sr90 cannot be
op M
liquefied due to its high relative density and low degree of saturation. Comparisons between
Figure 6 and Figure 7 show that the loose specimens and dense specimens behave similarly in
C ted
terms of excess pore air/water pressure accumulation during cyclic loading tests. That is to say,
the higher confining stress means higher liquefaction resistance. Again, the degree of saturation
ot p
N ce
plays an important role in determining the liquefaction resistance.
Conclusions and Discussion

Ac
Through this laboratory study, a series of triaxial tests on Nevada sand specimens with
different relative densities, effective confining stresses and degree of saturations is conducted.
All tests are undrained strain-controlled cyclic loading tests. From the data generated through
this study, some conclusions can be drawn as follows:
(1) Liquefaction occurs not only in loose saturated soils, but also in dense soils
and/or unsaturated soils during cyclic loadings with small strains.
Int. J. Geomech.
(2) Overall, liquefaction resistance increases with relative density and confining
stress and decreases with degree of saturation.
(3) During undrained strain-controlled cyclic loading tests, soils have a trend to
experience softening and their shear moduli keep decreasing.
t
(4) Overall, when soil specimens have same relative density and confining stress, the
ip
ones with lower degree of saturation will experience higher deviator stress, given the shear
d cr
strains are the same.
te s
(5) For all sand specimens tested in this study, they can reach the steady state at the
di nu
end of the tests.
ye a
By considering the above conclusions, it may be safe to conclude that a soil is not
op M
susceptible to liquefaction only if its relative density is higher than a certain value, its confining
stress is high enough and at the same time its degree of saturation is lower than a certain value.
C ted
The test results from this laboratory study provide a basis to transform current practices in
geohazard evaluation and geotechnical design when unsaturated soils are involved. It is
ot p
N ce
important to understand that an unsaturated state of some sandy soils does not necessarily
mean that liquefaction is not a concern. Sometimes, even when the soil is unsaturated, as long
Ac
as the degree of saturation is high enough, possible liquefaction has to be carefully evaluated by
simultaneously considering other factors, such as relative density, confining stress and loading
information.
Int. J. Geomech.
References
Arulmoli, K., Muraleetharan, K.K., Hossain, M.M. and Fruth, L.S. (1992). “VELACS: Verification
of liquefaction analysis by centrifuge studies, laboratory testing program, soil data

report.” Technical report, the Earth Technology Corporation, Irvine, California
t
ip
Bian, H. and Shahrour, I. (2009). “Numerical model for unsaturated sandy soils under cyclic
d cr
loading: application to liquefaction.” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 29, 237-244.
Bishop, A.W. (1959). “The principle of effective stress.” Tek. Ukebl., 106(39), 113-143.
te s
di nu
Bouferra, R., Benseddiq, N. and Shahrour, I. (2007). “Saturation and preloading effects on the
cyclic behavior of sand.” Int. J. Geomechanics, 7(5), 396-401.

ye a
Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M. (2004). “Evaluating the potential for liquefaction or cyclic
op M
failure of silts and clays.” Technical Report No. UCD/CGM-04/01, Department of Civil
C ted
and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Davis.
Chillarige, A.V., Robertson, P.K., Morgenstern, N.R. and Christian, H.A. (1997). “Seabed
ot p
instability due to flow liquefaction in the Fraser River delta.” Can. Geotech. J., 34, 520-533.
N ce
Dobry, R., Ladd, R.S., Yokel, R.Y., Chung, R.M. and Powel, D. (1982). “Prediction of pore water
pressure buildup and liquefaction of sands during earthquakes by the cyclic strain
Ac
method.” National Bureau of Standard, Building Science Series 138, Washington, D.C.
El Shamy, U., Zeghal, M., Dobry, R., Thevanayagam, S., Elgamal, A., Abdoun, T., Medina, C.,
Bethapudi, R. and Bennett, V. (2010). “Micromechanical aspects of liquefaction-induced
lateral spreading.” ASCE Int. J. Geomech., 10(5), 190-201.
Fourie, A.B., Hofmann, B.A., Mikula, R.J., Lord, E.R.F. and Robertson, P.K. (2001). “Partially
saturated tailings sand below the phreatic surface.” Géotechnique, 51(7), 577-585.
Int. J. Geomech.
Grozic, J.L.H., Robertson, P.K. and Morgenstern, B.R. (2000). “Cyclic liquefaction of loose gassy
sand.” Can. Geotech. J., 37, 843-856.
Hsu, J.R.C., Jeng, D.S. and Lee, C.P. (1995). “Oscillatory soil response and liquefaction in an
unsaturated layered seabed.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 19(12), 825-849.
t
Ishihara, M., Okamura, M. and Oshita, T. (2003). “Desaturating sand deposit by air injection for
ip
reducing liquefaction potential.” Proc. 2003 Pacific Conf. Earthq. Eng., Christchurch, New
d cr
Zealand, Paper No. 89.
te s
Kazama, M., Yanagisawa, E. and Yamaguchi, A. (2000). “Liquefaction resistance from a ductility
di nu
viewpoint.” Soils Found., 40(6), 47-60.
ye a
Khalili, N., Witt, R., Laloui, L., Vulliet, L. and Koliji, A. (2005). “Effective stress in double porous
op M
media with two immiscible fluids.” Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L15309.
Kramer, S.L. (1996). “Geotechnical earthquake engineering.” Prentice-Hall International Series

C ted
in Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Lade, P. V. and de Boer, R. (1997). “The concept of effective stress for soil, concrete and rock.”
ot p
N ce
Géotechnique, 47(1), 61-78.
Li, X.S. (2003). “Effective stress in unsaturated soil: a microstructural analysis.” Géotechnique,
Ac
53(2), 273-277.
Liu, C. and Muraleetharan, K.K. (2009). “Coupled hydraulic and mechanical behavior of
unsaturated soils: theory and validation.” Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Geotech. Eng.: The
Academia and Practice of Geotech. Eng., Hamza, M., Shahien, M. and El-Mossallamy, Y.
(Eds.), Alexandria, Egypt, 452-455.
Int. J. Geomech.
Liu, C. and Muraleetharan, K.K. (2012a). “A coupled hydraulic-mechanical elastoplastic
constitutive model for unsaturated sands and silts. Part I: formulation.” ASCE Int. J.
Geomech., 12(3), 239-247.

Liu, C. and Muraleetharan, K.K. (2012b). “A coupled hydraulic-mechanical elastoplastic
t
constitutive model for unsaturated sands and silts. Part II: integration, calibration and
ip
validation.” ASCE Int. J. Geomech., 12(3), 248-259.
d cr
Liu, C. and Muraleetharan, K.K. (2012c). “Numerical study on effects of initial state on
te s
liquefaction of unsaturated soils.” GeoCongress 2012: State of the Art and Practice in
di nu
Geotech. Eng., Hryciw, R.D., Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, A. and Yesiller, N. (Eds.), ASCE,
ye a
Oakland, CA, 2432-2441.
op M
Martin, G. R., Finn, W. D. L. and Seed, H. B. (1978). “Effects of system compliance on
liquefaction tests.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 101(5), 423-438.

C ted
Muraleetharan, K.K. and Wei, C.F. (1999). “Dynamic behavior of unsaturated porous media:
governing equations using the theory of mixtures with interfaces (TMI).” Int. J. Numer.
ot p
N ce
Anal. Meth. Geomech., 23, 1579-1608.
Murray, E.J. (2002). “An equation of state for unsaturated soils.” Can. J. Geotech., 39, 125-140.
Ac
Okamura, M., Ishihara, M. and Tamura, K. (2006). “Degree of saturation and liquefaction
resistances of sand improved with sand compaction piles.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
132(2), 258-264.
Okamura, M. and Soga, Y. (2006). “Effects of pore fluid compressibility on liquefaction
resistance of partially saturated sand.” Soils Found., 46(5), 695-700.
Int. J. Geomech.
Okamura, M., Takebayashi, M., Nishida, K., Fujii, N., Jinguji, M., Imasato, T., Yasuhara, H. and
Nakagawa, E. (2011). In-situ desaturation test by air injection and its evaluation through
field monitoring and multiphase flow simulation. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 137(7), 643-
652.
t
Popescu, R. and Prevost, J.H. (1993). “Centrifuge validation of a numerical model for dynamic
ip
soil liquefaction.” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 12(2), 73-90.
d cr
Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M. (1971). “Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction
te s
potential.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 97(9), 1249-1273.
di nu
Seed, H.B. and Lee, K.L. (1966). “Liquefaction of saturated sand during cyclic loading.” J. Soil
ye a
Mech. Found. Div., SM6, 105-134.
op M
Sherif, M. A., Tsuchiya, C., and Ishibashi, I. (1977). “Saturation effect on initial soil liquefaction.”
J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 103(8), 914-917.

C ted
Terzaghi, K. (1936). “The shear resistance of saturated soils.” Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found.
Eng., 1, 54-56.
ot p
N ce
Unno, T., Kazama, M., Uzuoka, R. and Sento, N. (2008). “Liquefaction of unsaturated sand
considering the pore air pressure and volume compressibility of the soil particle
Ac
skeleton.” Soils Found., 48(1), 87-99.
Uzuoka, R., Sento, N., Kazama, M. and Unno, T. (2005). “Landslides during the earthquakes on
May 26 and July 26, 2003 in Miyagi.” Soils Found., 45(4), 149-163.
Xia, H., and Hu, T. (1991). “Effects of saturation and back pressure on sand liquefaction.” J.
Geotech. Eng. Div., 117(9), 1347-1362.
Int. J. Geomech.
Yegian, M.K., Eseller, E., Alshawabkeh, A. and Ali, S. (2007). “Induced-partial saturation for
liquefaction mitigation: experimental investigation.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 133(4),
372-380.
Yoshimi, Y., Tanaka, K. and Tokimatsu, K. (1989). “Liquefaction resistance of a partially
t
saturated sand.” Soils Found., 29(3), 157-162.
ip
d cr
te s
di nu
ye a
op M
C ted
ot p
N ce
Ac
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJXUH&DSWLRQVOLVW
Figure Caption List:
Figure 1. Axial strain path at low frequency of 0.005 Hz

Figure 2. Mean effective stress vs. deviator stress of saturated and unsaturated specimens of
t
Dr0 30% : (a.1)~(a.3) V c 0 50 kPa and (b.1)~(b.3) V c 0 200 kPa .
ip
d cr
Dr0 70% : (a.1)~(a.3) V c 0 50 kPa and (b.1)~(b.3) V c 0 200 kPa .
te s
di nu
Figure 4. Stress-strain behavior of the saturated soil specimen with Dr0 70% and
V c0 50 kPa : (a) axial strain vs. deviator stress; and (b) time vs. pore water pressure.
ye a
Figure 5. Stress-strain behavior of the unsaturated soil specimen with Dr0 30% ,
op M
V c0 200 kPa and Sr0 95% : (a) axial strain vs. deviator stress; (b) time vs. pore air/water
C ted
pressure; and (c) axial strain vs. void ratio.
Figure 6. Excess pore water pressure ratio vs. number of cyclic loading for specimens with
ot p
Dr0 30% : (a.1)~(a.3) V c 0 50 kPa ; (b.1)~(b.3) V c 0 200 kPa

N ce
Ac
Dr0 70% : (a.1)~(a.3) V c 0 50 kPa ; (b.1)~(b.3) V c 0 200 kPa
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJXUH
3
2.0%
1.6%
2
0.8%
Axial strain (%)
0.4%
0.2%
0
-2
-3
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Time (seconds)
Figure 1. Axial strain path at low frequency of 0.005 Hz
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJXUH
40
20
0
(a.1) Dr30C50Sr100
-20
Deviator stress (kPa)
-40
20
0
(a.2) Dr30C50Sr95
-20
-40
100
50
0
-50 (a.3) Dr30C50Sr90
-100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Mean effective stress (kPa)
100
50
-50 (b.1) Dr30C200Sr100

-100
100
0
(b.2) Dr30C200Sr95
-100
400
200
-200 (b.3) Dr30C200Sr90
-400
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
‫ݎܦ‬଴ ൌ ͵ͲΨ: (a.1)~(a.3) ߪ௖଴ ൌ ͷͲ݇ܲܽ and (b.1)~(b.3) ߪ௖଴ ൌ ʹͲͲ݇ܲܽ.
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJXUH
100
50
0
(a.1) Dr70C50Sr100
Deviator stress (kPa) -50
100
50
0
(a.2) Dr70C50Sr95
-50
100
50
0 (a.3) Dr70C50Sr90
-50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
200
100
0
(b.1) Dr70C200Sr100
-100
200
0
(b.2) Dr70C200Sr95
-200
500
(b.3) Dr70C200Sr90
-500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

‫ݎܦ‬଴ ൌ ͹ͲΨ: (a.1)~(a.3) ߪ௖଴ ൌ ͷͲ݇ܲܽ and (b.1)~(b.3) ߪ௖଴ ൌ ʹͲͲ݇ܲܽ.
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJXUH
100

50
0
-50
(a)
-100
-2 -1 0 1 2
Axial strain (%)
160
Pore water pressure (kPa)
140
120
100
(b)
80
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000
Time (seconds)
Figure 4. Stress-strain behavior of the saturated soil specimen with ‫ݎܦ‬଴ ൌ ͹ͲΨ and ߪ௖଴ ൌ ͷͲ݇ܲܽ:
(a) axial strain vs. deviator stress; and (b) time vs. pore water pressure.
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJXUH
400
300

200
100
-100 (a)
-200
-2 -1 0 1 2
Axial strain (%)
600
Pore air/water pressure (kPa)
550
Pore air pressure
500 Pore water pressure
450
400
350 (b)
300
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Time (seconds)
0.67
0.66
Void ratio, e
0.65
(c)
0.64
-2 -1 0 1 2
Axial strain (%)
Figure 5. Stress-strain behavior of the unsaturated soil specimen with ‫ݎܦ‬଴ ൌ ͵ͲΨ, ߪ௖଴ ൌ ʹͲͲ݇ܲܽ
and ܵ‫ݎ‬଴ ൌ ͻͷΨ: (a) axial strain vs. deviator stress; (b) time vs. pore air/water pressure; and (c)
axial strain vs. void ratio.
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJXUH
1.0
A
Excess pore water pressure ratio, Ru

0.0 (a.1) Dr30C50Sr100
1.0
B
0.5
0.0 (a.2) Dr30C50Sr95

C
1.0
0.5
0.0
(a.3) Dr30C50Sr90
-0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Number of cyclic loading
1.0
D
0.5
(b.1) Dr30C200Sr100
0.0 E
1.0
0.5
(b.2) Dr30C200Sr95
0.0
F
1.0
0.5
0.0 (b.3) Dr30C200Sr90
-0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
‫ݎܦ‬଴ ൌ ͵ͲΨ: (a.1)~(a.3) ߪ௖଴ ൌ ͷͲ݇ܲܽ; (b.1)~(b.3) ߪ௖଴ ൌ ʹͲͲ݇ܲܽ
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJXUH
1.0
G
0.5

0.0 (a.1) Dr70C50Sr100
1.0
H
0.5
0.0 (a.2) Dr70C50Sr95

1.0
I
0.5
(a.3) Dr70C50Sr90
0.0
0 20 40 60
1.0
J
0.5
(b.1) Dr70C200Sr100
0.0
1.0 K
0.5
(b.2) Dr70C200Sr95
0.0
1.0 (b.3) Dr70C200Sr90
0.5
0.0
0 20 40 60
‫ݎܦ‬଴ ൌ ͹ͲΨ: (a.1)~(a.3) ߪ௖଴ ൌ ͷͲ݇ܲܽ; (b.1)~(b.3) ߪ௖଴ ൌ ʹͲͲ݇ܲܽ
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
7DEOH
Table 1. Triaxial test matrix for saturated and unsaturated Nevada sand
70% (dense)
Initial relative density Dr0
30% (loose)
100%
Initial degree of saturation Sr0
95%
90%
200 kPa
Initial confining stress V c 0
50 kPa
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
7DEOH
Table 2. Initial conditions of soil specimens before cyclic shearing
Compaction conditions End of consolidation

Initial Effective
Degree of Suction Specimen Specimen
Specimen relative confining Void
saturation (kPa) volume Void ratio volume
density stress (kPa) ratio
(cm3) (cm3)
No. 1 30% 50 100% 0 202.1 0.812 202.0 0.812

No. 2 30% 50 95% 3.19 200.3 0.805 198.7 0.799
No. 3 30% 50 90% 4.32 199.2 0.801 198.1 0.796
No. 4 30% 200 100% 0 202.4 0.814 200.9 0.808
No. 5 30% 200 95% 5.63 202.1 0.812 198.8 0.799
No. 6 30% 200 90% 7.20 199.3 0.801 195.3 0.785
No. 7 70% 50 100% 0 206.2 0.661 205.5 0.659
No. 8 70% 50 95% 4.49 202.3 0.648 200.0 0.641
No. 9 70% 50 90% 5.87 203.3 0.652 202.0 0.647
No. 10 70% 200 100% 0 205.3 0.662 205.0 0.661
No. 11 70% 200 95% 7.61 203.5 0.652 198.9 0.637
No. 12 70% 200 90% 6.31 202.2 0.648 201.5 0.646
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.

Liu 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Liu 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Geomechanics.

Submitted July 28, 2012; accepted August 13, 2013;

Experimental Study on Effects of Initial Conditions on Liquefaction

of Saturated and Unsaturated Sand

Chunyang Liu, Ph.D., P.E., M. ASCE1; and Jiting Xu2

procedure when unsaturated soils are involved.

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

saturation; Cyclic loading

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

liquefaction in unsaturated soils has been observed in gas-charged sediments in coastal or

liquefaction resistance of unsaturated soils. To evaluate the potential of liquefaction of

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

laboratory tests yet.

according to field observations and numerical analyses. Therefore, a comprehensive laboratory

unsaturated sand to advance current understanding on the mechanical behavior, especially

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

site conditions when unsaturated soils are involved.

Stress Variable of Unsaturated Soils

To study liquefaction of unsaturated soils, the selection of stress variable is necessary

σc σ  uaI  F scI σ  uaI  F ua  uw I (1)

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

complete liquefaction state is:

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

flow-type deformation or cyclic mobility.

did not affect the AEV significantly.

Specimen Preparation and Triaxial Tests

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

shearing for saturated and unsaturated specimens are given in Table 2.

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

was smaller than 2%.

Measurement and Calculation of Stress-Strain Variables

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Triaxial Test Results

of 50 kPa and initial degree of saturation of 100%.

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

plays an important role in determining the liquefaction resistance.

Conclusions and Discussion

this study, some conclusions can be drawn as follows:

and/or unsaturated soils during cyclic loadings with small strains.

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

stress and decreases with degree of saturation.

experience softening and their shear moduli keep decreasing.

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

of liquefaction analysis by centrifuge studies, laboratory testing program, soil data

report.” Technical report, the Earth Technology Corporation, Irvine, California

cyclic behavior of sand.” Int. J. Geomechanics, 7(5), 396-401.

and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Davis.

Bethapudi, R. and Bennett, V. (2010). “Micromechanical aspects of liquefaction-induced

lateral spreading.” ASCE Int. J. Geomech., 10(5), 190-201.

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

sand.” Can. Geotech. J., 37, 843-856.

Kramer, S.L. (1996). “Geotechnical earthquake engineering.” Prentice-Hall International Series

Géotechnique, 47(1), 61-78.

(Eds.), Alexandria, Egypt, 452-455.

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Liu, C. and Muraleetharan, K.K. (2012a). “A coupled hydraulic-mechanical elastoplastic

Geomech., 12(3), 239-247.

Liu, C. and Muraleetharan, K.K. (2012b). “A coupled hydraulic-mechanical elastoplastic

liquefaction tests.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 101(5), 423-438.

Anal. Meth. Geomech., 23, 1579-1608.

Okamura, M. and Soga, Y. (2006). “Effects of pore fluid compressibility on liquefaction

σc σ uaI F scI σ uaI F ua uw I (1)