Pore pressure response analysis for earthquakes

ASHOKK. CHUGHAND J. LAWRENCE

VONTHUN
Engineering and Research Center, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Denver, CO 80225, U.S.A.
Received September 11, 1984
Accepted June 21, 1985
Modifications and extensions made to the computer programs APOLLO and GADFLEA for studying the generation and
dissipation of pore water pressure in soil deposits under earthquake loading are presented. The revised versions of these
computer programs permit a fuller use of the analytically estimated site-specific earthquake response of soil deposits. These
changes do not, however, alter the basic formulation of the problem and the solution strategies implemented in the computer
programs APOLLO and GADFLEA. It is argued that the dynamic pore pressure response results obtained through these programs
when used iteratively with the total stress ground response analysis should yield results close to the true effective stress ground
response analysis for earthquake loading.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Diego (UCSD) on 09/14/14

Key words: pore pressure, earthquakes, soil dynamics, analysis, effective stress, computer programs, liquefaction.

On prCsente les modifications et extensions faites aux programmes d'ordinateur APOLLO et GADFLEA pour Ctudier la
ginbration et la dissipation de la pression interstitielle dans les dCp6ts de sol soumis 21 des charges sisrniques. Les versions
rCvisCes de ces programmes d'ordinateur permet une utilisation plus complbte de la riaction aux secousses sismiques, 6valuCe
analytiquement, d'un dCp6t de sol sur un site donne. Cependant, ces changements n'althrent pas la formulation de base du
problhme, ni des stratCgies de solution exCcutCes dans ces programmes d'ordinateur. L'argumentation est it l'effet que les
rksultats de rCaction de la pression interstitielle sous sollicitations dynamiques obtenus au moyen de ces programmes,
1orsqu'utilisCs de fa~onitCrative avec l'analyse de rCaction du sol en contrainte totale, devraient s'approcher des rCsultats
obtenus au moyen de l'analyse de reaction du sol en contrainte effective sous sollicitation sismique.
Mots clis: pression interstitielle, tremblements de terre, dynamique des sols, analyse, contrainte effective, programmes
d'ordinateur, 1iquCfaction.
Can. Geotech. J. 22,466-476 (1985) [Traduit par la revue]
For personal use only.

Introduction Mansouri (1980).' The methods differ in the simplifying

Figure 1 gives a schematic description of what happens in a
soil mass during an earthquake. In the postearthquake period,
the disturbing forces due to the earthquake cease to act, the
perturbations in the soil mass caused by the earthquake tend to
readjust, and the soil deposit acquires a new postearthquake
steady-state condition. The analysis of the problem of dynamic
response of soils is of great interest in geotechnical engineering.
The knowledge of stress-strain-damping characteristics of the
soil is a prerequisite for any dynamic response analysis of a soil
deposit. The knowledge of pore fluid response to a seismic
loading and its interaction with the soil skeleton response is an
equally important feature for a true dynamic analysis of soils.
The inclusion of these pore fluid effects in a dynamic analysis
yields an effective stress dynamic analysis procedure whereas
their exclusion yields a total stress dynamic analysis procedure.
Effective stress ground response analysis requires knowledge
of the pore water pressure distribution in the soil. For an
earthquake loading, the knowledge of pore water pressure
distribution in the soil and its variation with time is essential.
The available procedures for solving the soil dynamics prob-
lems in geotechnical engineering can be grouped in two
categories: (1) coupled, effective stress analysis procedures and
(2) uncoupled, total stress analysis procedures and pore pressure
response analysis procedures.
The coupled procedures treat the soil as a two-phase system
(three-phase if it is partially saturated) and seek the solution to
the complete problem, i.e., the solution procedures account for
the response of the solid skeleton and pore fluid pressure, their
interaction and effects on material response for each time step
in the integration of equations of motion. These analysis
procedures are described in papers such as Finn et al. (1977,
1978), Ghaboussi and Dikrnen (1978), Liou et al. (1977), and
assumptions that are made in the mathematical description of
soil shear stress vs. shear strain relation, nature of damping,
computation of pore water pressure increments during cyclic
loading, in the methods used to integrate the equations of
motion, etc. Comparisons of analysis procedures that treat the
soil as a two-phase system and account for the interaction
between solids and pore fluid for each time step of the
earthquake loading are given in papers such as Cheng (1980),
Ferritto and Forrest (1977), and Mansouri (1980).
The uncoupled analysis procedures treat the soil as a two-part
system (soil skeleton and the pore fluid) and seek the solution to
each part of the system separately, i.e. the dynamic response
analysis of the solid skeleton is obtained first and then, using
these results, calculations are performed to obtain the pore fluid
response due to earthquake loading. Though seldom performed
in actual practice, it is possible to use the results of pore fluid
response analysis in adjusting the material properties and
recalculating the dynamic response of the soil skeleton, which
in turn shall influence the pore fluid response. This approach
shall yield 'iterative elastic - delayed pore pressure response
analysis. ' A few repetitions of the iterative process should yield
results with accuracy comparable to that obtained using the
procedures in the first category. The details of various soil
dynamics analysis procedures for the soil skeleton are described
by Lysmer (1978). The details of the pore pressure response
analysis procedures are described by Seed et al. ( 1 9 7 5 ~ ) The
.
essential step linking the dynamic analysis of the soil skeleton
and the pore water pressure response calculations is the concept
of representing an irregular shear stress - time response by an
'References included in this paper are representative, but not a
complete list, of the works on the subject.
 CHUGH AND VON THUN 467

PRESElSMlC
CONDITIONS
(SOIL 8. PORE-
PRESElSMlC CONDITIONS
(SOIL 8. PORE-FLUID) I AT T H E E N D O F E A R T H Q U A K E
LOADING % . WHEN ALL
EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS
ON THE SOlL AND PORE
FLUIDS HAVE CEASED
FLUID)

DYNAMIC MATERIAL
PROPERTIES

( L
PROPERTIES
) ( $:,p%
;;: ) EARTHQUAKE
LOADING
FOR EACH PULSE
(TIME STEP) OF THE
EARTHQUAKE LOADING SOlL SKELETON RESPONSE
( I T E R A T I V E PROCESS BECAUSE
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Diego (UCSD) on 09/14/14

OF NONLINEAR DYNAMIC
I MATERIAL PROPERTIES 1
POSTSEISMIC
CONDITIONS
(SOIL 8. PORE-
FLUID)

l o ) P H Y S I C A L P H E N O M E N A A N D S E Q U E N T I A L A C C O U N T I N G OF
THE E A R T H Q U A K E E F F E C T S I N N U M E R I C A L A N A L Y S I S
1 PORE-FLUID RESPONSE I
I l c ) POSTEARTHQUAKE PHYSICAL SITUATION

DYNAMIC MATERIAL
PROPERTIES
For personal use only.

( b ) I T E R A T I V E ACCOUNTING OF T H E E A R T H Q U A K E
E F F E C T S I N NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

FIG. 1. Qualitative description of the physical problem and analysis procedures. (a) Physical phenomena and sequential accounting of the
earthquake effects in numerical analysis. ( b ) Iterative accounting of the earthquake effects in numerical analysis. ( c ) Postearthquake
physical situation.

equivalent number of uniform shear stress cycles. This concept available computational procedures and their modified forms
is described by Lee and Chan (1972) and Seed et al. (1975b). with the help of a sample problem.
The advantage of using the uncoupled approach is that any of The sample problem is taken from the foundation liquefaction
the available soil dynamics analysis procedures and their potential studies for the Yuma Desalting Plant at the Yucca site
associated computer programs may be used to calculate the located in the State of Arizona, U.S.A. The modified forms of
response of the soil structure on a total stress basis. The pore the computer programs are named APOLLO-M1 and GAD-
pressure response can then be obtained by a separate calculation FLEA-M1 and are functional on the CDC CYBER 170-730
using the results of the total stress response analysis. The results computational system available at the Bureau of Reclamation
of pore pressure analysis may be used to evaluate the progres- (Chugh 1981a , b). A listing of the modifications and extensions
sive stiffness characteristics of the soil. The results of this to the programs in FORTRAN IV and the user's instructions can
evaluation may be included in a new ground response analysis if be obtained from the authors on request.
deemed necessary (Martin and Seed 1979).
The two commonly used computer programs for studying Theoretical ideas and their numerical implementations
pore pressure response in soil deposits subjected to earthquake The basic differential equation defining the simultaneous
loading are APOLLO and GADFLEA (Martin and Seed 1978; generation and dissipation of pore water pressures in a sand
Booker et al. 1976). There are differences in the ground deposit due to seismic loading is (Seed et al. 1975a)
response representations in the two computer procedures and
both accountings are somewhat different from that proposed by
Seed et al. (1975~)and Martin and Seed (1979) in their
recommended procedures for evaluating pore pressure response
and its effects. where m, = coefficient of volume compressibility, y, = unit
The objectives of this paper are the following: weight of water, z = depth within the soil, k = soil
1. To identify the desired procedure for evaluating the pore permeability, du = pore water pressure change, and au,/at =
water pressure response in a soil deposit due to seismic rate of pore pressure buildup.
excitation and its numerical implementations in the two easily Equation [I] without the source term is
available and widely used computer programs APOLLO and
GADFLEA.
2. To compare the results of pore water pressure response in a
soil deposit subjected to an earthquake loading using the Equation [2] defines the dissipation of pore water pressure
 468 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 22, 1985
during the postearthquake period. It also applies during the
earthquake excitation to those layers located above any layer
that develops a condition of liq~efaction.~ In such a case, shear
stresses can no longer be transmitted through the liquefied zone
and thus, the pore pressure redistribution is defined by [2].
The undrained rate of pore pressure buildup can be calculated
by the empirical findings of development of pore water pressure
in granular soils under cyclic loading conditions (Seed et al.
1975a). This formulation leads to the following development:
2 taken into account in the analysis procedure.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Diego (UCSD) on 09/14/14
[4] u g = - u O r sin-'
IT
Equation [4] is the empirical relationship. The empirical
constant a depends on the soil type. The undrained rate of pore
pressure buildup is calculated using [3] and [5]. The pore
pressure ratio u,/a,' needed in [5] is obtained from [4] for a
preassigned value of a. The symbol N is the number of uniform
shear stress cycles undergone by the soil at a given depth during
the earthquake loading and Ne is the number of cycles at the
same stress level required to cause liquefaction under undrained
For personal use only.
conditions.
The cyclic loading frequency is d N / d t . If Neq is the total
number of uniform stress cycles occurring in a soil sample
during the entire duration of an earthquake td, then for uniform
cyclic loading frequency,
This 'constant-rate' buildup to the total number of uniform
stress cycles in a layer is identified as 'single-phase' shear stress
loading in this paper.
However, when a specified earthquake motion induces
periods of high stress intensity followed by significant periods
of little activity, it becomes desirable to evaluate the number of
uniform stress cycles, Neqi, for each such period. For J periods
in the induced stress history by an earthquake:
and
'The earthquake motion is assumed to be composed of horizontally
polarized plane shear waves. The significance of horizontal shear
waves in causing significant response in a soil deposit is well recog-
nized. In the event of a soil zone at depth having liquefied during an
earthquake, further propagation of shear waves through the liquefied
zone is cut off. However, the compression waves can travel up through
the liquefied zone and affect the response of the soil deposit above the
liquefied zone. Surface waves can also affect the upper portions. Thus
the insignificance of soil response caused by compression and surface
waves, in the absence of shear waves, cannot be prejudged but is
assumed in this paper.
This 'varying-rate' buildup to the total number of uniform stress
cycles in a layer is identified as 'multiphase' shear stress loading
in this paper.
The procedure recommended by Seed et al. (1975~)for
evaluating generation and dissipation of pore water pressure in a
sand deposit due to seismic excitation involves the following
steps:
1. By means of a dynamic response analysis of the soil
deposit, determine the shear stress histories (time variations of
shear stresses) caused by the earthquake at the various depths of
interest in the soil deposit. At this point, the effects of pore
pressure increases on the stresses developed are not directly
2. For each depth in the soil profile, determine the equivalent
uniform cyclic shear stress T,,, the equivalent number of uni-
form shear stress cycles Neq, and the effective period of each
stress cycle Teq, representing the induced stress history.
3. Determine, from laboratory cyclic load tests, the relation-
ships between the applied uniform cyclic shear stresses and the
number of stress cycles required to produce a condition of
liquefaction under undrained conditions for different depths in
the deposit.
4. From the data developed in step 3 determine the number of
stress cycles of magnitude T,, required to cause liquefaction of
the soil at that depth, Ne.
5. From the known ratios of Ne,INe at various depths, deter-
mine the rate of pore pressure buildup du,/at, for each elemental
layer of the deposit, if it were undrained, using a representative
curve from data on rate of pore pressure buildup in cyclic shear
tests. Equations [3]-[5] are generally used in the absence of
specific laboratory test data, a = 0.7.
6. From a knowledge of the coefficients of permeability and
compressibility of soil layers, determine the corresponding
values of the coefficients of consolidation, C, = k/rnvy, for the
different layers.
7. By any appropriate method, solve the differential equation
[ l ] for-theknownvalues of soil characteristics, pore pressure
generation expressions, and boundary conditions. The solution
may be pursued beyond the period of earthquake excitation by
solving the differential equation [2].
The two readily available and commonly used computer
procedures for studying pore pressure response due to seismic
loading that are based on the above ideas are APOLLO and
GADFLEA (Martin and Seed 1978; Booker et al. 1976). The
computer program APOLLO uses [8] whereas the computer
program GADFLEA uses [6] in evaluating the undrained rate of
- -
pore pressure buildup using [3]. A brief description of these two
procedures along with their perceived limitations is given
below.
APOLLO (Martin and Seed 1978): The computer program
APOLLO is designed to study pore pressure response in a
horizontally layered sand deposit in one dimension, i.e.,
vertical flow of pore water, due to earthquake loading at the
bottom of the deposit. It solves [ l ] by the finite difference
technique using incremental time steps. The pore pressure
generation is estimated from the laboratory test data on rate of
pore pressure buildup in cyclic shear tests under undrained
3Even though the above description is cast in terms of soil lique-
faction terminology, the results of solving [l] and (or) [2] give the pore
pressure response in a soil deposit subjected to earthquake loading. Soil
liquefaction may or may not occur in a soil deposit during a seismic
event.
 Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Diego (UCSD) on 09/14/14
For personal use only.

-
~ 5 ' 1 'WV'Z
'
LUP
'
W9'V
W9.V
'
WZ'S
- 7 7 7 -,GI
sI
LI
CHUGHANDVONTHUN

02
W 1.9
'
--
01
W$
--
4
J
I
 470 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 22, 1985

conditions as a function of the number of cycles to cause

liquefaction. The shear stress response data for calculating pore
water pressure response in the soil deposit are defined for one
layer only. These data are in terms of duration of the earthquake
motion, number of equivalent shear stress cycles for the entire
duration of the earthquake, and number of phases within the
shear stress response at different constant rates of cycling. The
same loading description is then applied to each layer in the
deposit for calculating the pore water response. This implies
that the shear stress response of all the layers in the deposit or
their conversion into number of equivalent shear stress cycles
for all the layers in the deposit is the same. This implied
assumption may affect the results of an analysis. Also, there is
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Diego (UCSD) on 09/14/14

no recommended method of selecting the representative shear

stress response data from within the soil mass that can be
assumed applicable for all the layers in a soil deposit. Thus, the
results of pore water response analysis remain somewhat
arbitrary depending upon the choice of the representative shear FIG.3. Nonlinear material characteristics for total stress analysis
stress response data. Presumably, one could calculate the using SHAKE computer program.
number of equivalent uniform shear stress cycles of loading for
each layer in a soil deposit and then use the data for the layer that 0 7 I I I I I I I

has the largest number of equivalent uniform shear stress cycles

-
of loading for calculating pore pressure response in the deposit. 0.6

Either way, this simplification of same loading for all the layers Monterey Sand
in a deposit (number of equivalent uniform shear stress cycles
being independent of depth) does not hold in the computed
ground response results, and is not in agreement with the desired
For personal use only.

procedure as outlined above (Seed et al. 1975a).

GADFLEA (Booker et al. 1976): The computer program
GADFLEA is a two-dimensional finite element implementation
of the general approach outlined above. It requires, as input,
information about the shear stress response data for one layer
only. These data are in terms of duration of the earthquake
motion and number of equivalent shear stress cycles for the
entire duration of the motion. There is assumed to be only one
phase with a constant rate of cyclic loading frequency for the
entire earthquake duration. The same loading description is then
applied to each layer in the deposit for calculating the pore
pressure response. Thus, the implicit limitations of the one-
dimensional analysis procedure are also implied in the two-
dimensional procedure. In addition, one-phase loading with
constant rate of cycling for the entire earthquake duration may
be an unnecessary simplification in the computer implementa-
tion of the recommended solution procedure. Also, in the
GADFLEA computer procedure, no allowance is made for the
fact that the shear stresses should not be allowed to be
transmitted above a liquefied zone in a soil deposit subjected to
earthquake loading at its base, a concept which is included in
the APOLLO program.
The modified computer programs APOLLO-M1 and GAD-
FLEA-M 1 eliminate the simplifications mentioned above and as
such accomplish the procedure recommended by Seed et al.
(1975a) for pore pressure response calculations. Equation [8] is
utilized in calculating the cyclic loading frequency a N / d t ,
which in turn is used in [3] for calculating the rate of pore
pressure buildup. Also, the cyclic loading frequency data are
specified for each soil element in the deposit. These modi-
fied versions of APOLLO and GADFLEA do not alter the
basic formulation of the problem, or the solution strategies.
APOLLO-M 1 and GADFLEA-M 1 do, however, permit a more
direct use of the site-specific earthquake response of soil deposit
in studying the pore pressure response in the deposit. The pore
pressure buildup is not permitted in materials overlying a layer
0 I I I I I I I I
I 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000
NUMBER OF CYCLES REQUIRED TO CAUSE I N I T I A L LIQUEFACTION
FIG.4. Results of large-scale cyclic simple shear tests (DeAlba et
al. 1975).
or layers where pore pressure ratio(s) has reached the value of 1,
for all time steps past the occurrence of pore pressure ratio of
unity. This is accomplished by using [2] instead of [I].
Sample problem
This problem is taken from the foundation liquefaction
potential studies for the Yuma Desalting Plant at the Yucca site
located in the extreme southwest comer of Arizona, near the
Mexican border and the Colorado River. This site is part of a
large flat and level alluvial flood plain of the Colorado River.
The subsurface investigations at the site indicate the total depth
of sediments above bedrock to be about 1000 ft (305 m) and
increasing to about 3500 ft (1070 m) at locations several miles to
the south. The upper llOft (34m) at the site has been
investigated by the Bureau of Reclamation with holes drilled at
nine random locations. Standard penetration tests and both 3 in.
(8 cm) and 5 in. (13 cm) diameter soil samples have been taken
at these holes. Shear wave velocity measurements have also
been made. The results of this field investigation have revealed,
on a broad basis, a fairly well defined consistent soil profile at
the site. The design earthquake for this site is assumed to be the
El Centro N-S component, 1940, scaled to a maximum
acceleration of 0.2 g.
 AND VON THUN

'4 r

,
LAYER "2

18 -
/ 16 -
/ /
/
/
14 -
/
/ 0 12 -
/ -
/
3
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Diego (UCSD) on 09/14/14

/ IO-
/ -4 7
/
/
,,5
,
'
,
,,
,
,
LAYER " 3 LAYER *7
/
/

LAYER "8

0
For personal use only.

14 -

12 -
/
/
/
/
/
/

LAYER *5
_----
__---- LAYER * 9

I " ' ' ' ' '

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 O l l 1 2 1 3 1 4 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I3 14

TlME ( s ) TlME ( s )

FIG.5. Calculated number of equivalent shear stress cycles for different layers (Lee and Chan 1972).

The ground response analysis for this problem was performed iterative procedure is continued until no significant changes in
using the computer program SHAKE (Schnabel et al. 1972). A moduli and damping are necessary. The response determined
short description of this computer program is included here for during the last iteration is considered to be a reasonable
completeness sake (Chugh 1985). approximation to the nonlinear response of the soil to the
SHAKE (Schnabel et al. 1972): SHAKE is a total stress earthquake loading. The integration of the equations of motion
method which treats the nonlinear soil by an equivalent linear is based on classical wave propagation theory using transfer
procedure. The nonlinear response is approximated by a linear functions. The computer program can be used to compute the
elastic model with damping. The stress-strain properties of the response for a design motion given anywhere in the soil deposit.
soil are defined by strain-dependent shear moduli and equivalent Every layer in a soil deposit is homogeneous and isotropic and is
viscous damping factors. An equivalent modulus and damping characterized by the thickness h , mass density p, shear modulus
ratio at any strain level are determined from the slope of the G, and damping factor P.
major axis of the hysteresis loop corresponding to that strain and Figure 2 shows the discretization of the soil deposit into
area of the loop, respectively. Since the vertical distribution of layers and the material properties used for the dynamic ground
the shear strain is unknown, initial values of moduli and response. The nonlinear variation of the shear modulus and
damping are selected corresponding to small strain values or to critical damping factors with respect to shear strain are as shown
strain levels judged appropriate for the anticipated earthquake in Fig. 3 (Seed and Idriss 1970).
loading, and an elastic analysis is carried out for the entire The variations of maximum shear stress and average stress
duration of the earthquake. The average strain (some percentage ratio (0.65~,,/~,'), each computed at the top of layers, with
of the maximum value, usually 65%) is computed at each level; depth are shown in Fig. 2b. The computed shear stress history
moduli and damping ratios, compatible with these average for each layer is used to calculate the number of equivalent
strains, are selected and the calculations are repeated. The cycles of uniform shear stress at 0 . 6 5 using~ ~ ~the Lee and
 .sasuodsas ssa3ls nays 30 suo~~eu!quros
atq~ssods n o p h so3 sasuodsas amssasd alod 30 surnuI!xow 'g '9Id
S(13AVl 11V 0 1 O3llddV 51 0 (13AVl (101 BNIOV01 6 0
S 0021-009 31111
0'1 6'0 0.0 1'0 9'0 E'O b'0 C'O tO I'O 0.1 6'0 8'0 1'0 9'0 5'0 VO C'O 2'0 1'0
For personal use only.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Diego (UCSD) on 09/14/14

0.1 6'0 8'0 1'0 9'0 5'0 t.0 C'O 2'0 1'0
OllVM 3MnSS3Md 3LIW 8833x3 WflWIXVW
9NIOVOl 3SVHd - 3 1 9 N I S
 CHUGHANDVONTHUN
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Diego (UCSD) on 09/14/14
1 TO ALL THE LAYERS
For personal use only.
FIG. 7. Pore pressure response history at 23 ft (7 m) depth for a selected combination of shear stress responses (single-phase
loading).
Chan (1972) procedure. The weighting curve used for determin-
ing the equivalent effects of different stress levels corresponds
to relative density of 68% and is shown in Fig. 4 (DeAlba et al.
1975). The variations of number of equivalent uniform shear
stress cycles with time for each layer in the soil deposit are
shown in Fig. 5 by the solid lines (multiphase). The dashed lines
in this figure indicate the linear increase in the number of
equivalent uniform shear stress cycles with time if it were to
occur or be assumed (single-phase).
In order to study the effects of using a particular layer's data
for the number of equivalent uniform shear stress cycles of
loading and its variations with time on the computed pore
pressure response in the soil deposit, both during the earthquake
and the period following the earthquake, the following sets of
calculations were performed:
1. Using single-phase variation of equivalent number of
uniform shear stress cycles of loading with respect to time, pore
water pressure response in the deposit was calculated using the
computer program GADFLEA-M 1 (Chugh 1981a). These
calculations considered eight different cases of loading, one
each of the seven layers' responses applied to all the layers in the
deposit, and one in which each layer was loaded with its own
response. The maximum excess pore pressure ratios obtained by
these calculations are shown in Fig. 6a. The results indicate
a rather large sensitivity of the pore pressure response in the
deposit to the imposed loading. Using these results as a guide,
473
- USING EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE OF EACH LAYER
AS OBTAINED FROM SHAKE ANALYSIS. FIG
-- USING EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE OF 3RDLAYER
TO A L L THE LAYERS
. . USING EARTHPUAKE RESPONSE OF 5 T H LAYER
three loading-history locations (giving larger pore pressure
response) were selected for additional study. Specifically, these
three loading-history locations are layer 3, layer 5, and each
layer by itself. The postearthquake pore pressure response for
each of the three loading histories as applied to all the layers in
the deposit are shown in Figs. 66 and 6c. Again, the differences
in the computed results are significant.
2. Using multiphase variation of equivalent number of
uniform shear stress cycles of loading with respect to time, pore
water pressure response in the deposit was calculated using the
computer program GADFLEA-MI . These calculations consid-
ered the three worst cases of loading-history locations, i.e.,
layer 3, layer 5 , and each layer by itself. Figures 6d, and 6 e and
6f show the maximum excess pore pressure ratio results for
during the earthquake and for the postearthquake periods,
respectively. The layout of this figure permits a direct compari-
son of computed pore pressure response due to single-phase
loading history and multiphase loading history, all else being
the same.
3. The stratum at 23 ft (7 m) below the ground was selected to
compare the results of excess pore pressure ratio history using
the single-phase loadings and the multiphase loadings of the
three locations as mentioned before, i.e., layer 3, layer 5, and
each layer by itself shear stress - time response data. Figure 7
shows a comparison of the pore pressure response results during
the earthquake for the single-phase loadings. Figure 8 shows the
 474 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 22. 1985
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Diego (UCSD) on 09/14/14

- USING EARTHOUAKE RESPONSE OF EACH LAYER

AS OBTAINED FROM SHAKE ANALYSIS. FIG
-- USING EARTHOUAKE RESPONSE OF 3RD LAYER
TO A L L THE LAYERS
, , USING EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE OF 51H LAYER
TO A L L T H E LAYERS
For personal use only.

TIME ( 5 )

FIG. 8. Pore pressure response history at 23 ft (7 m) depth for a selected combination of shear stress responses (multiphase
loading).

1.0 -

I
0.8 - (SINGLE-PHASE LOADING)
I
u
ax I
,a., I
0.6 -
/
0)
W
/
ax
n //
/
/
0)
Y)

I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 100 1000
TlME (5)

FIG.9. Comparison of pore pressure response history at 23 ft (7 m) depth for single-phase and multiphase shear stress
response data.
 CHUGHANDVONTHUN
SOIL PROFILE
0- 0
5
3 --
6 --
23
9 --
-
-
r
E
12.-
15 -- I
-+a-
k53
W CYCLES AT req-065 Tmox (LOADING1
0 IS-- X
21-- 70
24 --
27--
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Diego (UCSD) on 09/14/14
90
30- 100
I 10
NUMBER OFUNIFORM STRESS CYCLES
FIG. 10. Liquefaction potential evaluation for the sample problem (Seed and Idriss 1971).
corresponding results for the multiphase loadings. Figure 9
shows the computed results of pore pressure ratio histories for
the multiphase and single-phase loadings of each layer by itself
for the earthquake and postearthquake durations considered.
These calculations were all performed using the computer
program GADFLEA-M1. Essentially identical results are ob-
tained using the computer program APOLLO-M1 (Chugh
1981b) using the same data. However, these results are not
included here to conserve space.
For personal use only.
Discussion of results
The following observations can be made from the results of
the sample problem presented above:
1. Use of single-phase shear stress loading results in higher
calculated maximum excess pore pressure ratio values than
those obtained using the corresponding multiphase shear stress
loading representation for pore pressure generation and dissipa-
tion calculations, all else being equal. This is seen in Fig. 6. It
seems fair to say that, in general, use of shear stress -time data
of each layer (as obtained by the total stress analysis),
single-phase or multiphase, results in lower computed maxi-
mum pore pressure ratio values at depth than those obtained
using the worst shear stress loading data for the entire deposit
and applying it to all the layers in the deposit. This identification
of the worst shear stress loading data is being made in terms of
the largest number of equivalent uniform shear stress cycles
used as a loading for the pore pressure response calculations.
The same is not true at shallow depths where the multiphase
shear stress loading for each layer gives higher values of maxi-
mum pore pressure ratio during the earthquake and periods
immediately following the earthquake (dissipation) than the
multiphase shear stress loading for one layer applied to all the
layers. For the 23 ft (7 m) depth, this trend is indicated in Figs. 7
and 8.
2. The use of multiphase loading for each layer causes pore
pressure buildup at a faster rate than does the use of
single-phase loading for each layer, as shown in Fig. 9. There is
naturally no effect on the pore pressure dissipation in the
postearthquake period.
3. Based on the results of these calculations of pore water
pressure response, use of the computer program GADFLEA-
M1 will lead to the conclusion that liquefaction is likely to occur
at depths of about 23 and 53 ft (7 and 16 m) below the ground
0 NUMBER OF UNDRAINED CYCLES TO
LIQUEFACTION AT r e q = 0 6 5 rmax
(STRENGTH)
A TOTAL NUMBER OF UNIFORM STRESS
100 1000
during the earthquake and that liquefaction shall persist at these
depths for the next 10 min. But 10 min after the earthquake, the
pore pressure will readjust to a high but relatively stable range.
This is seen in plots of results shown in Fig. 6. However, use of
the computer program GADFLEA will lead to the conclusion
that liquefaction is likely to occur in a zone 38-70 ft (12-21 m)
below the ground during the earthquake and that liquefaction
will persist in this material zone for the next 10min. The
redistribution of pore pressure, 10 min after the earthquake,
indicates liquefaction occurring at 13 ft (4 m) below the ground.
Liquefaction potential evaluation for this site is easily made
by this sample problem using the simplified procedure (Seed
and Idriss 1971). Figure 10 shows a comparison of number of
equivalent uniform shear stress cycles induced in different
layers by the design earthquake and number of equivalent
uniform shear stress cycles required to cause liquefaction in the
corresponding layers. Based on this comparison, an estimated
12 ft (4 m) deep zone located at about 38 ft (12 m) below the
ground should liquefy in the event the design earthquake occurs.
There is evidence showing sand boils (liquefaction) occurred
during the 1940 E l Centro earthquake at locations near the site
and for similar foundation conditions. This agreement between
theoretical prediction and actual occurrence of liquefaction at
the site is indeed encouraging in assigning credibility to the
computational procedures.
Summary and conclusions
The computer programs APOLLO and GADFLEA allow an
estimation of the response of the pore water in a soil deposit
subjected to an earthquake loading and as such represent useful
tools to an engineer. The modified versions of these two
programs, APOLLO-M 1 and GADFLEA-M1, bring them in
line with the recommended procedure for evaluating pore
pressure response in a soil deposit subjected to earthquake
loading (Seed et al. 1975a). These programs require values of
coefficient of permeability, coefficient of volume compressibil-
ity, and porosity. These values may be obtained from tests but
are often assumed based on soil characteristics. As with other
one-dimensional representations, the program APOLLO or
APOLLO-M1 assumes infinite horizontal layers. In cases where
discontinuities or slopes are present, and horizontal drainage is
much higher than the vertical drainage (as is usually the case),
 476 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 22, 1985

the computer program GADFLEA-M 1 should be used to study
the problem in two dimensions.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to
Messrs. D. Miedema and W. Bennett, Drs. P. P. Martin, P. J.
Hradilek, and J. D. Smart, Professors H. Gesund, M . S .
Rahman, and H. Bolton Seed for their helpful comments and
suggestions in response to the authors' personal inquiries on the
general subject and reviewing the initial draft of this paper.
BOOKER,J. R., RAHMAN,M. S., and SEED,H. B. 1976. GAD-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Diego (UCSD) on 09/14/14
MANSOURI, T. A. 1980. Dynamic response and liquefaction of earth
structures. Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, CO.
MARTIN,P. P., and SEED, H. B. 1978. APOLLO-a computer
program for the analysis of pore pressure generation and dissipation
in horizontal sand layers during cyclic or earthquake loading.
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, CA, Report No. EERC 78-21.
1979. Simplified procedure for effective stress analysis of
ground response. ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, 105(GT6), pp. 739-758.
SCHNABEL, P. B., LYSMER,J., and SEED,H. B. 1972. SHAKE-a
computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally
layered sites. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
of California, Berkeley, CA, Report No. EERC 72-12.

FLEA-a computer program for the analysis of pore pressure

generation and dissipation during cyclic or earthquake loading.
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, CA, Report No. EERC 76-24.
CHENG,W. 1980. Effects of soil properties on liquefaction potential
during earthquakes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington,
Seattle, WA.
CHUGH,A. K. 1981a . Proposed modifications for GADFLEA-a
computer program for the analysis of pore pressure generation and
dissipation during cyclic or earthquake loading by J. R. Booker, M.
S. Rahman, and H. Bolton Seed. 1976. U.S. Bureau of Reclama-
tion, E & R Center, Denver, CO, Report No. TM-222-TS-2.
1981b. Proposed modifications for APOLLO-a computer
program for the analysis of pore pressure generation and dissipation
in horizontal sand layers during cyclic or earthquake loading by P. P.
Martin, and H. Bolton Seed. 1978. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, E
For personal use only.
SEED,H. B., and IDRISS,I. M. 1970. Soil moduli and damping factors
for dynamic response analysis. Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, Report No. EERC
70-10.
1971. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction
potential. ASCE Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, 97(SM9), pp. 1249- 1273.
SEED,H. B., MARTIN,P. P., and LYSMER, J. 1975a. The generation
and dissipation of pore water pressures during soil liquefaction.
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, CA, Report No. EERC 75-26.
SEED,H. B., IDRISS,I. M., MAKDISI,F., and BANEWEE, N. 19756.
Representation of irregular stress time histories by equivalent
uniform stress series in liquefaction analyses. Earthquake Engineer-
ing Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA,

& R Center, Denver, CO, Report No. TM-222-TS-3. Report No. EERC 75-29.
1985. Dynamic response analysis of embankment dams.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in List of symbols
Geomechanics, 9, pp. 101-124.
coefficient of consolidation
DEALBA,P., CHAN,C. K., and SEED,H. B. 1975. Determination of
soil liquefaction characteristics by large scale laboratory tests. shear modulus
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, layer thickness
Berkeley, CA, Report NO. EERC 75-14. number of phases
FERRITTO,J. M., and FORREST,J. B. 1977. Determination of soil permeability
seismically induced soil liquefaction potential at proposed bridge coefficient of volume compressibility
sites-theoretical considerations. Federal Highway Administration, number of uniform shear stress cycles undergone by soil
Washington DC, Report No. FHWA-RD-77-127. equivalent number of uniform stress cycles representing
FINN,W. D. L., LEE, K. W., and MARTIN,G. R. 1977. An effective the induced stress history
stress model for liquefaction. ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical number of stress cycles of magnitude T, required to cause
Engineering Division, 103(GT6), pp. 517-533.
liquefaction
FINN, W. D. L., MARTIN,G. R., and LEE, M. R. W. 1978.
Comparison of dynamic analyses for saturated sands. Proceedings, effective period of each stress cycle representing the in-
ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Speciality Conference on Earth- duced stress history
quake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Pasadena, CA, Vol. 1, time
pp,+472-49 1. duration of earthquake
GHABOUSSI, J., and DIKMEN,S. U. 1978. Liquefaction analysis of pore water pressure
horizontally layered sands. ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical pore pressure caused b y the earthquake
Engineering Division, 104(GT3), pp. 341-356. depth
LEE, K. L., and CHAN,K. 1972. Number of equivalent significant empirical soil constant
cycles in strong motion earthquakes. Proceedings of the Interna- damping factor
tional Conference on Microzonation for Safer Construction Re-
unit weight of water
search and Application, Seattle, WA, Vol. LI.
Llou, C. P., STREETER, V. L., RICHART ART, F. E. 1977. A numerical mass density
model for liquefaction. ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineer- effective overburden pressure corresponding to hydro-
ing Division, 103(GT6), pp. 589-606. static pore pressure conditions
LYSMER, J. 1978. Analytical procedures in soil dynamics. Earthquake equivalent uniform cyclic shear stress representing the in-
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, duced shear stress history
CA, Report No. EERC 78-29.