See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/371110052

Calibration of Pore Pressure Model for the Liquefaction Prediction of Soils Based
on Behavior of Clean Sand, Magnitude Scaling Factor, and Initial Stress Level

Article  in  Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · August 2023

DOI: 10.1061/JGGEFK.GTENG-11447

CITATIONS READS

0 50

5 authors, including:

Hyeong-Joo Kim Peter Rey Tan Dinoy

Kunsan National University Kunsan National University
64 PUBLICATIONS   343 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   71 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hyeong-Soo Kim Tae-Woong Park

Kunsan National University Kunsan National University
14 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   75 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Analysis of Negative Skin-Friction on Single Piles by One-Dimensional Consolidation Model Test View project

Derivation of design charts based on the two-dimensional structural analysis of geotextile tubes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Peter Rey Tan Dinoy on 28 May 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Calibration of Pore Pressure Model for the Liquefaction
Prediction of Soils Based on Behavior of Clean Sand,
Magnitude Scaling Factor, and Initial Stress Level
Hyeong-Joo Kim, Ph.D., M.ASCE 1; Peter Rey Dinoy, Ph.D. 2; Hyeong-Soo Kim, Ph.D. 3;
Tae-Woong Park, Ph.D. 4; and Young-Soung Jeong, P.E. 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 118.235.15.191 on 05/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The pore pressure model was developed in the past to predict liquefaction induced by an earthquake. Its main advantage is that its
parameters can be obtained from experiments based on direct measurement of pore pressure data. However, two downsides of the pioneering
model are that its parameters are distinct for each relative density, and that liquefaction curves derived from the model have not been evaluated
fully based on well-known triggering liquefaction curves. This research advances the pore pressure model by introducing a method of adjust-
ing the incremental pore pressure rise using calibration factors. Based on the behavior of clean sand, calibration factors, which take into
account the effect of the critical stress ratio, earthquake magnitude, and initial stress level, were derived. The calibrated pore pressure model
was compared with data from direct simple shear tests to verify the derived calibration factors, and good agreement between the measured
and predicted data was observed. DOI: 10.1061/JGGEFK.GTENG-11447. This work is made available under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Author keywords: Pore pressure model; Liquefaction; Calibration; Clean sand.

Introduction
The cyclic liquefaction of saturated soils is a subject of paramount
significance because of its widespread engineering implications
(Yang et al. 2022), and it has attracted considerable interest from
researchers and engineers from both geotechnical and seismic fields
(Wei 2021). Pore pressure models can be a valuable tool in under-
standing the liquefaction mechanism of sand because they can pre-
dict pore pressure rise based on direct measurement of pore pressure
data, and can determine major factors that affect incremental pore
pressure rise. Ishibashi et al. (1977) proposed a simple pore pressure
model that predicts the pore pressure rise under uniform and non-
uniform dynamic shear stresses based on undrained cyclic shear ex-
periments conducted on loose saturated Ottawa sand. Sherif et al.
(1978) then extended the pore pressure model and applied it to pre-
dict the pore pressure rise of Ottawa sand at three different densities
under earthquakelike loading. However, four of the parameters in
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Kunsan National Univ., Gunsan
54150, Republic of Korea. Email: kimhj@kunsan.ac.kr
2
Researcher, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Renewable
Energy Research Institute, Kunsan National Univ., Gunsan 54150, Repub-
lic of Korea (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002
-5884-1748. Email: peter_rey@kunsan.ac.kr
3
Researcher, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kunsan
National Univ., Gunsan 54150, Republic of Korea. Email: gudtn3004@
kunsan.ac.kr
4
Research Professor, Renewable Energy Research Institute, Kunsan
National Univ., Gunsan 54150, Republic of Korea. Email: r2r3r4r5@
kunsan.ac.kr
5
Engineer, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kunsan
National Univ., Gunsan 54150, Republic of Korea. Email: jos0428@
kunsan.ac.kr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 25, 2022; approved on
March 20, 2023; published online on May 27, 2023. Discussion period
open until October 27, 2023; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
the model are unique for each density. In addition, the cyclic resis-
tance ratios (CRRs) that were obtained from the model were not
evaluated fully based on field performance data because studies of
liquefaction were still in their infancy stage at that time. Calibration
by successively tracing pore pressure change was difficult because
of the lack of accurate information concerning the characteristics of
incremental pore pressure change (Ishihara and Li 1972).
The cyclic resistance ratio versus a magnitude 7.5 earthquake, as
defined by Seed and Idriss (1982), is equivalent to the cyclic stress
ratio (CSR) that can cause liquefaction of a sample in the laboratory
at 15 cycles. Seed et al. (1985) summarized data from Pan-America,
Japan, and China, and developed a relationship between the cy-
clic resistance ratio and standard penetration test (SPT) blow count
ðN 1 Þ60 for clean sand (clay content ≤5%) under a magnitude 7.5
earthquake. The relationship subsequently was modified by various
researchers, including with relationships proposed by Youd et al.
(2001) and Idriss and Boulanger (2004) (Fig. 1), and the CRR
varied nonlinearly with relative density (Dr ).
Experiments conducted by Ishibashi et al. (1977) on loose Ottawa
sand ðDr ¼ 0.23Þ under uniform loading using the torsional simple
shear device resulted in the complete liquefaction of the samples after
about 25 and 90 cycles when the applied stress ratios were 0.17 and
0.13, respectively (Fig. 2). This study introduces the term “complete
liquefaction” to denote the condition in which the excess pore water
pressure is equal to or greater than the initial effective stress. Based on
the relationship given by Youd et al. (2001) for clean sand (Fig. 1), the
CRR for the same relative density would be about 0.05. This means
that the samples in Fig. 2 should have liquefied completely at stress
ratios greater than 0.05 at less than 15 cycles. A simulation of the pore
pressure rise of Ottawa sand in the torsional simple shear device using
the pore pressure model by Ishibashi et al. (1977) and the parameters
for loose Ottawa sand (Fig. 2) indicated that the soil did not liquefy
completely under an applied stress ratio of 0.05, even after 1,000
cycles. This discrepancy might be due to the limitations of the
torsional simple shear device used by Ishibashi et al., as discussed
by Ladd and Silver (1975). Since the advent of cyclic load testing,

© ASCE 04023059-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2023, 149(8): 04023059

 it generally has been recognized that virtually all types of cyclic load
tests are subject to some degree of error due to equipment limitations
(Castro 1969; Finn et al. 1970; Seed and Peacock 1971).
Sherif et al. (1977) reported the cyclic shear strength of loose,
medium dense, and dense Ottawa sand in the torsional simple shear
device at various numbers of cycles to complete liquefaction. Based
on the reported curves, the CRR at 15 cycles was obtained for
Ottawa sand (Fig. 1), and there was a noticeable difference in be-
havior between Ottawa sand and clean sand—the CRR was large at
low ðN 1 Þ60 values for the Ottawa sand. Based on the experiment,
Ottawa sand is more resistant to liquefaction at lower densities.
In addition, the trend tends to favor lower CRR at higher ðN 1 Þ60
values for Ottawa sand. As a result of the aforementioned short-
comings of the previous pore pressure model proposed by Ishibashi
et al. (1977) and Sherif et al. (1978), the present study introduces a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 118.235.15.191 on 05/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
method for adjusting the incremental pore pressure using calibra-
tion factors (CFs), which consider the effect of the peak stress ratio,
earthquake magnitude, and initial stress levels.
Fig. 1. Relationship of CRR and ðN 1 Þ60 for clean sand and Ottawa
sand under a magnitude (Mw ) 7.5 earthquake.
Fig. 2. Measured and predicted behavior of loose Ottawa sand in
torsional simple shear device.
© ASCE 04023059-2
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2023, 149(8): 04023059
Formulation of Density-Based Pore Pressure Model
Relationship between Incremental Excess Pore Water
Pressure, Shear Stress Ratio, and Number of Cycles
The incremental excess pore water pressure rise during shear
loading at the Nth cycle, ΔuN , can be obtained from the difference
between the total excess pore water pressure at the end of the Nth
cycle, uN , and at the end of the ðN − 1Þth cycle, uN−1
ΔuN ¼ uN − uN−1 ð1Þ
Dividing the total and incremental excess pore water pressures,
uN , uN−1 , and ΔuN , by the initial effective pressure (σ00 ), the nor-
malized total and incremental excess pore water pressures, U N ,
U N−1 , and ΔU N can be obtained
uN − uN−1 Δu
ΔU N ¼ ¼ U N − U N−1 ¼ 0N ð2Þ
σ00 σ0
Ishibashi et al. (1977) and Sherif et al. (1978) investigated the
behavior of Ottawa sand under uniform cyclic loading using the tor-
sional simple shear device, and found that the ratio of the normal-
ized incremental excess pore water pressure (ΔU N ) to the stress
history function (1 − U N−1 ) is linearly related to the ratio of the
shear stress (τ N ) during the current stress cycle to the effective pres-
0
sure (σN−1 ) from the previous stress cycle in a log-log plot. Ishibashi
et al. (1977) and Sherif et al. (1978) proposed that the relationship
can take the form of a power regression as given in Eq. (3), which is
the governing equation of the original pore pressure model intro-
duced in this study. The slope is denoted α, and is the power of
0
the stress ratio (τ N =σN−1 ) in Eq. (3). Furthermore, α is considered
to be constant at every cycle. The constant multiplier in Eq. (3) is
denoted N̄, which characterizes the effect of the number of stress
cycles. In the original pore pressure model (Ishibashi et al. 1977;
Sherif et al. 1978), a relationship between N̄ and N was proposed
using three constants, namely C1, C2, and C3 [Eq. (4)]. The values
of the these constants for loose, medium dense, and dense Ottawa
sand were provided by Sherif et al. (1978), and are summarized in
Fig. 3. To generalize the behavior of Ottawa sand, the relationships
of the constants C1, C2, C3, and α at various relative densities (Dr )
Fig. 3. Relationship of C1, C2, C3, and α with Dr for Ottawa sand in
torsional simple shear device.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
  
also are shown in Fig. 3. The correlations of the constants with Dr , τN α
ΔU N 0
σN−1 C1 · N
as proposed in this study, are given by Eqs. (5)–(8). Combining N̄ ¼ ¼ ð4Þ
Eqs. (5)–(7) into Eq. (4) results in Eq. (9), which allows for effect ð1 − U N−1 Þ N C2 − C3
of the number of stress cycles to be determined easily at any value
of Dr . Rearranging Eq. (3), and combining Eqs. (8) and (9) into C1 ¼ ð0.025 · Dr−3.49 þ 1.97Þ ð5Þ
Eq. (3), the normalized incremental excess pore pressure rise (ΔU)
with each stress cycle at any density can be calculated using Eq. (10), C2 ¼ ð2.07 · D4.47 þ 1.77Þ ð6Þ
r
which is the governing equation of the density-based pore pressure
model proposed in this study
C3 ¼ ½1.6 · sinð0.37 · Dr þ 2.8Þ þ 0.07 · sinð8.1 · Dr − 0.6Þ ð7Þ


ΔU N τN α
¼ N̄ 0 ð3Þ
1 − U N−1 σN−1 α ¼ 2.63 − Dr ð8Þ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 118.235.15.191 on 05/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ð0.025 · Dr−3.49 þ 1.97Þ · N

N̄ ¼ ð2.07·D4.47
ð9Þ
N r þ1.77Þ − ½1.6 · sinð0.37 · Dr þ 2.8Þ þ 0.07 · sinð8.1 · Dr − 0.6Þ

2.63−D
τ r ð0.025 · D−3.49 þ 1.97Þ · N
ΔU N ¼ ð1 − U N−1 Þ 0 N · r
ð10Þ
σN−1 N ð2.07·D4.47
r þ1.77Þ − ½1.6 · sinð0.37 · Dr þ 2.8Þ þ 0.07 · sinð8.1 · Dr − 0.6Þ

Prediction of Pore Pressure Rise under Earthquake
Loading
The number of cycles N in Eq. (10) is applicable only for uniform
cyclic loading, and during an earthquake the shear stress ampli-
tudes are irregular from one cycle to another. To evaluate all the
numbers of cycles of different stress amplitudes prior to the cycle
at which the pore pressure is to be predicted, variable N in Eq. (10)
is replaced by the equivalent number of cycles ðN eq Þ, and the shear
stresses are considered independently in the positive and negative
regions. In addition, the magnitudes of the pore pressures are de-
termined solely by the value of the maximum shear stress in the
half-cycle, because it has the most significant influence on pore-
pressure buildup (Sherif et al. 1978). Hence, at the Nth cycle, the
maximum shear stress amplitudes from the first cycle to the Nth
cycle of the positive region determine the positive equivalent num-
ber of cycles ðN eq;p Þ, whereas the maximum shear stress amplitudes
of the negative region determine the negative equivalent number of
cycles ðN eq;n Þ [Eq. (11)]. In Eq. (11), τ N;p is the positive cyclic
shear stress during the Nth cycle, and τ N;n is the negative cyclic
shear stress during the Nth cycle. Due to asymmetry in the peak
values during one cycle, pore pressure rise is predicted for every
half-cycle. The normalized incremental excess pore pressure rise
due to positive cyclic shear stress τ N;p during the Nth cycle (ΔU N;p )
is calculated using Eq. (12), whereas the normalized incremental
excess pore pressure rise due to negative cyclic shear stress τ N;n
during the Nth cycle (ΔU N;n ) is calculated using Eq. (13). The nor-
malized total excess pore water pressure (U N ) during the Nth cycle
of an earthquake is expressed by Eq. (14)

N

X  N

X 
τ i;p α τ i;n α
N eq;p ¼ ; N eq;n ¼ ð11Þ
i¼1
τ N;p i¼1
τ N;n

2.63−D
τ N;p r ð0.025 · D−3.49
r þ 1.97Þ · N eq;p
ΔU N;p ¼ ð1 − U N−1 Þ 0 · ð12Þ
σN−1 ð2.07·D4.47
N eq;p r þ1.77Þ
− ½1.6 · sinð0.37 · Dr þ 2.8Þ þ 0.07 · sinð8.1 · Dr − 0.6Þ

2.63−D
τ N;n r ð0.025 · D−3.49
r þ 1.97Þ · N eq;n
ΔU N;n ¼ ð1 − U N−1 Þ 0 · ð13Þ
σN−1 ð2.07·D4.47
N eq;n r þ1.77Þ
− ½1.6 · sinð0.37 · Dr þ 2.8Þ þ 0.07 · sinð8.1 · Dr − 0.6Þ

U N ¼ U N−1 þ 0.5ðΔU N;p þ ΔU N;n Þ ð14Þ

Calibration of Density-Based Pore Pressure Model
Triggering liquefaction curves in the literature usually are estab-
lished from a baseline curve developed from the behavior of clean
sand, a soil that contains little to no fines. The curve is derived
based on an initial stress level close to the value of the atmospheric
pressure, which is approximately 100 kPa, and based on the cyclic
resistance ratio against a magnitude (Mw ) 7.5 earthquake, which is
approximately equivalent to the cyclic stress ratio (τ =σ00 ) that can
cause liquefaction in about 15 cycles (Seed and Idriss 1982). Lique-
faction resistance is depicted by the relationship between cyclic
stress ratio and the number of load cycles required to reach a lique-
faction criterion, which usually is stress-based or strain-based (Yu
et al. 2022). For example, Beaty and Byrne (2011) assumed that

© ASCE 04023059-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2023, 149(8): 04023059

 liquefaction occurs either if the normalized total excess pore water
pressure (U) exceeds 0.85 or when the maximum shear strain ex-
ceeds 3%. Because the current pore pressure model cannot evaluate
the shear strains, the complete liquefaction criteria was utilized in
the calibration of the pore pressure model to symbolize a clear oc-
currence of liquefaction. As discussed in the Introduction, the origi-
nal pore pressure model results in higher resistance to liquefaction
at low densities and weaker resistance at high densities, and hence a
method must be applied so that the liquefaction resistance can be
adjusted to match that of the clean sand.
Calibration of Pore Pressure Model Based on Behavior
of Clean Sand in Direct Simple Shear Tests
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 118.235.15.191 on 05/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the characteristics that define the shape of the pore pressure–time
history curve so as to be able to replicate the behavior of clean sand.
This study introduces calibration factors CF and CFcrit to adjust
the original predicted curve of the pore pressure model (precali-
brated curve), as shown in Eq. (15). Factor CF is applied to each
incremental pore pressure rise per half-cycle throughout the duration
0
of cyclic loading, whereas CFcrit is applied only when (τ N =σN−1 ) is
0
greater than or equal to the critical stress ratio ðτ =σ Þcrit . In this
study, ðτ =σ 0 Þcrit is defined as the stress ratio at the start of the stage
wherein the rate of excess pore water pressure accumulation starts to
increase and diverges from the nearly constant rate of pore pressure
buildup from the previous stage (Sherif et al. 1977; Konstadinou and
Georgiannou 2014). The critical stress ratio ðτ =σ 0 Þcrit is determined
by drawing a line on the graph that intersects with the portion in
which the rate of pore pressure buildup is constant. The stress ratio

The first step is to calibrate the pore pressure model based on the
behavior of clean sand in direct simple shear tests, as presented by
Boulanger and Ziotopoulou (2017). The pore pressure–time history
curves at relative densities (Dr ) of 0.35, 0.55, and 0.75 and at cyclic
shear loading (τ =σ00 ) of 0.089, 0.145, and 0.312, respectively, are
shown in Fig. 4. The shapes of the curves and the numbers of cycles
to complete liquefaction differ. Hence, there is a need to investigate
that last intersects the line is determined to be the critical stress ratio
(Fig. 5). In Fig. 5, when the effective stress is reduced to 55 kPa
from an initial effective stress of 100 kPa due to a uniform cyclic
shear loading of 8.9 kPa, the rate of pore pressure buildup starts to
deviate and increase rapidly from a U of 0.45 to a U of about 0.98
in less than 3.0 s. For clean sand with Dr ¼ 0.35, the critical stress
ratio was determined to be approximately 0.16

Fig. 4. Behavior of clean sand in direct simple shear tests at relative densities (Dr ) of 0.35, 0.55, and 0.75 with cyclic shear loading (τ =σ00 ) at 0.089,
0.145, and 0.312, respectively.

Fig. 5. Determination of ðτ =σ 0 Þcrit for clean sand at Dr ¼ 0.35.

© ASCE 04023059-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2023, 149(8): 04023059

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 118.235.15.191 on 05/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Procedure for determining the value of CFcrit .

ΔU N;calib ¼ CF · CFcrit · ΔU N ð15Þ The peak stress ratios for Dr ¼ 0.35, 0.55, and 0.75 were deter-
mined based on the method by Boulanger and Ziotopoulou (2017)
0
When (τ N =σN−1 ) exceeds ðτ =σ 0 Þcrit , the values of two param- (Fig. 7). To relate the critical stress ratio to the peak stress ratio,
eters in the pore pressure model, namely α and CFcrit , are changed. ðτ =σ 0 Þcrit =ðτ =σ 0 Þpeak versus relative density was determined (Fig. 7).
Konstadinou and Georgiannou (2014) deduced that the value of α The value of ðτ =σ 0 Þcrit =ðτ =σ 0 Þpeak increased nonlinearly with the
0
increases by about 2.83 times the initial value of α when (τ N =σN−1 ) increase of relative density. As a result, Eq. (17) is proposed to
0
is greater than ðτ =σ Þcrit . They presented the change in α when the determine ðτ =σ 0 Þcrit based on Dr and ðτ =σ 0 Þpeak . Boulanger and
stress ratio exceeded the critical stress ratio for Ham river sand with
Ziotopoulou (2017) suggested that the default value of ϕcv for clean
a relative density of 35%. They showed that an increase of α to 6.8
sand is 33°, and the default value of nb is 0.5 when ξ r < 0, and 0.125
from a value of 2.4 was satisfactory for the observed behavior. Their
when ξ r > 0. Currently, the pore pressure model has been calibrated
analysis included not only Ham river sand but also Fontainebleau
using only a constant friction angle of 33°; hence, further analysis
sand, M31 sand, and Ottawa sand, and the densities of the tested
and validation using constant friction angles other than 33° degrees
soils ranged from 19% to 61%. The initial value of α is denoted
are recommended
as αi and has a value given by Eq. (8), and αi multiplied by 2.83
is denoted αcrit [Eq. (16)]. This change in α allows for the rate of
pore pressure rise to transition slowly to a rapid rate after ðτ =σ 0 Þcrit ðτ =σ 0 Þcrit ¼ ð2.729 · D5.105
r þ 0.2678Þ · ðτ =σ 0 Þpeak
0
is achieved. The value of CFcrit is 1.0 when (τ N =σN−1 ) is less
0 ¼ ð2.729 · D5.105
r þ 0.2678Þ
than ðτ =σ Þcrit , and it increases to a value greater than 1.0 when
0 ) is greater than or equal to ðτ =σ 0 Þcrit . The value of CFcrit
(τ N =σN−1 × ½0.5 · sinðϕcv Þ · expð−nb · ξ r Þ ð17Þ
is determined by following the steps in Fig. 6
αcrit ¼ 2.83 · αi ð16Þ

Based on the data in Fig. 4, the values of ðτ =σ 0 Þcrit were deter-

mined for Dr ¼ 0.55 and Dr ¼ 0.75 (Fig. 7); ðτ =σ 0 Þcrit increased
with relative density. This study assumed that ðτ =σ 0 Þcrit is density-
dependent. This attribute was presented by Konstadinou and
Georgiannou (2014), who showed that ðτ =σ 0 Þcrit can be assumed
to be constant at various shear loading magnitudes. In this study,
the critical stress ratio was correlated with the peak stress ratio
ðτ =σ 0 Þpeak to widen the scope of parameters considered by the pore
pressure model. The peak stress ratios can be estimated based on
either the peak friction angle (ϕpeak ) using the equation ðτ =σ 0 Þpeak ¼
sinðϕpeak Þ, or the critical-state approach introduced by Boulanger
and Ziotopoulou (2017). For the pore pressure model, the critical
state approach is recommended because it considers the constant
friction angle (ϕcv ) and the relative state parameter index (ξ r ). The
parameter ϕcv affects the dilative and contractive behavior of the
soil because it controls the boundary between dilation and contrac-
tion. Elgamal et al. (1998) reported the possibility of the influence of
soil-skeleton dilation on the shear stiffness and shear strength, and
they suggested that phases of dilation can lead to instances of pore
Fig. 7. Variation of ðτ =σ 0 Þcrit , ðτ =σ 0 Þpeak , and ðτ =σ 0 Þcrit =ðτ =σ 0 Þpeak
pressure reduction, spikes in lateral acceleration records, and strong
with relative density for clean sand.
restraining effect on shear strains.

© ASCE 04023059-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2023, 149(8): 04023059


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 118.235.15.191 on 05/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Sample calibration of the pore pressure model for Dr ¼ 0.35.
Sample calibration of the pore pressure model based on the
behavior of clean sand with Dr ¼ 0.35 is shown in Fig. 8. The num-
ber of cycles was normalized with the number of cycles to complete
liquefaction ðN liq Þ to differentiate the curves of the model without
calibration and the calibrated model. The model without calibration
is notably more resistant to liquefaction at lower densities; therefore
it took an excessive number of cycles to achieve complete liquefac-
tion. Furthermore, the predicted curve without calibration overesti-
mated the normalized excess pore water pressure with the normalized
number of cycles. Introducing CF, CFcrit , and αcrit into the pore pres-
sure model and using values of 6.499, 4,000, and 6.45, respectively,
resulted in good agreement with the clean sand, which liquefied in
only 14 cycles, compared with the original pore pressure model
which predicted complete liquefaction after 25,860 cycles. The val-
ues of CFcrit for Dr ¼ 0.55 and 0.75 also were determined (Fig. 9).
Based on Fig. 9, Eq. (18) is proposed as a means to relate CFcrit to
Dr . Simulations of the calibrated pore pressure model using the
Fig. 9. Variation of CFcrit with relative density (Dr ).
© ASCE 04023059-6
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2023, 149(8): 04023059
suggested values of αcrit and CFcrit are shown in Fig. 10. The cali-
brated pore pressure model adequately predicted the behavior of
clean sand at Dr ¼ 0.55 and Dr ¼ 0.75. The value of CF for Dr ¼
0.75 is less than 1.0. This is because the original pore pressure
model has low resistance to liquefaction at higher densities; there-
fore a CF value less than 1.0 will decelerate the rise in pore pressure
CFcrit ¼ 5.121 · D−6.34
r þ 18.27 ð18Þ
Calibration Based on Triggering Liquefaction Curves
In the section “Calibration of Pore Pressure Model Based on
Behavior of Clean Sand in Direct Simple Shear Tests,” the focal
point of calibration was the determination of the critical stress ratio
and its influence on the shape of the excess pore-water pressure
curve, whereas in this section, the pore pressure model is calibrated
based on sets of CRR curves from well-known triggering liquefac-
tion curves. The CRR can be obtained from the pore pressure
model by setting the target number of cycles, and the (τ =σ00 ) that
can cause liquefaction at the target number of cycles is determined
as the CRR. The overall CF obtained from the previous section is
related to the calibration factor for a magnitude 7.5 earthquake
(CF7.5 ), the calibration factor ratio for earthquake magnitude or
number of cycles to liquefaction (CFratioNliq ), and the calibration
factor ratio for the initial effective stress (CFratioσ 0 ), as shown in
Eq. (19). In this study, the CFratio is defined as the ratio of the
overall CF to CF7.5 [Eq. (20)]. Utilizing CFratio allows multiple
influential parameters that affect the cyclic strength of the soil
to be integrated into the pore pressure model
CF ¼ CF7.5 · CFratioNliq · CFratioσ 0 ð19Þ
CF
CFratio ¼ ð20Þ
CF7.5
Calibration Based on Clean Sand Base Curve
Idriss and Boulanger (2004) re-examined the semiempirical proce-
dures for evaluating the liquefaction potential of saturated cohesion-
less soils during earthquakes, and proposed Eq. (21) to determine
the value of the cyclic resistance ratio of clean sand for a magnitude
7.5 earthquake (CRR7.5 ) at an initial effective stress (σ00 ) of 100 kPa.
Because the pore pressure model is derived based on relative den-
sity, the relation in Eq. (22), which was suggested by Boulanger and
Ziotopoulou (2017), is used to convert the SPT blow count ðN 1 Þ60 to
its corresponding value of Dr . By integrating CF and CFcrit into the
pore pressure model, it is possible to adjust the cyclic strength curve
shown in Fig. 11. For an earthquake of Mw ¼ 7.5, N liq is set to 15,
which is the value proposed by Seed and Idriss (1982). Conse-
quently, calibration of the pore pressure model is possible based
on the complete liquefaction criterion. The CRRs at blow counts
lower than 26 need to be reduced, whereas the CRR at blow counts
greater than 26 need to be shifted upward to match the clean-sand
base curve



ðN 1 Þ60 ðN 1 Þ60 2 ðN 1 Þ60 3
CRR7.5 ¼ exp þ −
14.1 126 23.6

4 
ðN 1 Þ60
þ − 2.8 ð21Þ
25.4
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðN 1 Þ60
Dr ¼ ð22Þ
46
To obtain CF7.5 , other influential parameters, including
CFratioNliq and CFratioσ 0 , must be set to 1.0. A value of 1.0 for
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 118.235.15.191 on 05/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Behavior comparison of clean sand in direct simple shear test and calibrated pore pressure model: (a) Dr ¼ 0.55; and (b) Dr ¼ 0.75.

Fig. 11. CRR adjustment of original pore pressure model using Fig. 12. Variation of CF7.5 with relative density.
calibration factor (CF).

The values of CF7.5 with relative density, which were obtained

CFratioNliq means that the shear loading is equivalent to an earth-
quake with a moment magnitude (Mw ) of 7.5, and a value of 1.0 for
CFratioσ 0 means that the initial effective stress (σ00 ) is 100 kPa.
When Mw and σ00 values are other than the baseline values, CFratio
can be either less than or greater than 1.0. Furthermore, the values
of CFcrit in terms of relative density [Eq. (18)] are not adjusted in
the calibration process. Because CRR7.5 for a relative density is
already known from Eq. (21), the values of CF7.5 are to be deter-
mined by trial and error, which can be a tedious method. To accel-
erate the determination of CF7.5 with relative density and CRR7.5 ,
the pore pressure model was coded in MATLAB Version R2019b
such that CF7.5 increases from 0 to 12 until the value of U at 15
cycles is equal to or greater than 0.99. In other words, when the
predicted U after 15 cycles is less than 0.99, the previous value of
CF7.5 is increased incrementally, and the pore pressure rise from
N ¼ 1 to 15 is calculated again until the failure criterion is satis-
fied. To ensure that the obtained value of CF7.5 is satisfactory, it is
necessary to use smaller increments; however, very small incre-
ments could result in longer calculation times.
by trial and error, are shown in Fig. 12. The value of CF7.5 increased
nonlinearly with relative density from 5.0 to about 6.8, and de-
creased substantially to less than 1.0 when Dr > 0.75. Due to the
high nonlinearity of the relationship between Dr and CF7.5 , the ra-
tional function in Eq. (23) is proposed such that CF7.5 can be ob-
tained for any value of Dr . Utilizing Eq. (23) and setting the number
of cycles to 15, the predicted CRR from the pore pressure model had
very good agreement with the clean-sand base curve (Fig. 13)
CF7.5


−34.13 · D4r þ 74.1 · D3r − 59.47 · D2r þ 19.86 · Dr − 1.621
¼
D2r − 0.456 · Dr þ 0.1523
ð23Þ
Calibration Considering Magnitude Scaling Factor or
Number of Cycles to Liquefaction
Numerous researchers, including Seed and Idriss (1982), Andrus and
Stokoe (1997), and Idriss and Boulanger (2008), have suggested

© ASCE 04023059-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2023, 149(8): 04023059

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 118.235.15.191 on 05/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. Comparison of clean sand base curve and calibrated pore
pressure model.
Fig. 14. MSF with moment magnitude (Mw ).
values of magnitude scaling factors (MSFs) with moment magni-
tude (Mw ) (Fig. 14). These values of MSF are multiplied with
CRR7.5 to obtain the CRRMw of the soil at various earthquake mag-
nitudes [Eq. (24)]. To calibrate the pore pressure model considering
the effect of earthquake magnitude, it is necessary to determine the
equivalent number of cycles to liquefaction ðN liq Þ. This is because
the calibration method proposed in this study is based on failure
at a target number of cycles. Instead of relating N liq to Mw , the
N liq -MSF relationship is suggested due to the variations of relation-
ship between MSF and Mw in the literature. For Mw ¼ 6.0, the MSF
values from Seed and Idriss (1982), Andrus and Stokoe (1997),
and Idriss and Boulanger (2008) range between 1.3 and 1.9 (Fig. 14).
In the present study, the relationship between MSF and N liq was
obtained from Seed and Idriss (1982) and from Boulanger and
Ziotopoulou (2017), and the data are summarized in Fig. 15. Curve
© ASCE 04023059-8
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2023, 149(8): 04023059
Fig. 15. Relationship between MSF and N liq .
fitting was performed, and the relationship in Eq. (25) is proposed
to calculate N liq based on the MSF
CRRMw ¼ MSF × CRR7.5 ð24Þ
N liq ¼ 7900 · expð−8.122 · MSFÞ þ 187.5 · expð−2.69 · MSFÞ
ð25Þ
Setting the MSF to 1.79, 1.6, 1.32, 0.8, and 0.7, and setting N liq
to 2, 3, 6, 34, and 55, respectively, CFNliq was obtained for relative
densities ranging between 0.2 and 0.8 [Fig. 16(a)]. The calibrated
curves using CFNliq from Fig. 16(a) are shown in Fig. 16(b). In
the calibration, CFNliq is equal to the overall CF by setting σ00 to
100 kPa, so that CFratioσ 0 is equal to 1.0, making it a nonfactor in
the calibration. Dividing CFNliq in Fig. 16(a) by CF7.5, the variation
of CFratioNliq with Dr at various values of MSF and N liq is obtained
[Eq. (26) and Fig. 17]. It then was determined that CFratioNliq can
be related to Dr through a polynomial function given by Eq. (27), in
which the values of aNliq , bNliq , and cNliq can be obtained by relat-
ing them to N liq using the rational functions in Eqs. (28)–(30), re-
spectively. Using Eq. (27), the cyclic resistance curves obtained
from the calibrated pore pressure model for N liq ¼ 2, 3, and 22
were compared with the cyclic resistance curve obtained using
Eq. (24) for MSF ¼ 1.7, 1.5, and 0.9. The data were in adequate
agreement with each other (Fig. 18)
CFNliq
CFratioNliq ¼ ð26Þ
CF7.5
CFratioNliq ¼ aNliq · D2r þ bNliq · Dr þ cNliq ð27Þ
where


10.15 · N 2liq − 161.1 · N liq þ 80.88
aNliq ¼ ð28Þ
N 2liq þ 57 · N liq − 53.04


−7.858 · N 2liq þ 122.9 · N liq − 44.16
bNliq ¼ ð29Þ
N 2liq þ 48.44 · N liq − 44.3
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 118.235.15.191 on 05/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 16. Calibration of pore pressure model considering MSF and N liq : (a) variation of CFNliq with Dr ; and (b) calibrated cyclic strength curves at
various MSF and N liq .

Fig. 17. Variation of CFratioNliq with Dr at various MSF and N liq . Fig. 18. CRR from Eq. (24) and from pore pressure model for
MSF ¼ 1.7, 1.5, and 0.9.


4.065 · N 2liq þ 0.8483 · N liq − 34.92
cNliq ¼ ð30Þ
N 2liq þ 46.68 · N liq − 31.37
Calibration Considering Influence of Initial Effective Stress
The cyclic resistance of a soil is influenced by the effective overbur-
den stress. Seed (1981) introduced the overburden correction factor
(K σ ) to adjust the CRR based on a common value of effective over-
burden stress. Relationships with K σ have been derived from labo-
ratory tests, theoretical considerations, and regression against field
case histories, including those presented by Harder and Boulanger
(1997), Hynes and Olsen (1998), Boulanger (2003), Boulanger and
Idriss (2004), and Cetin et al. (2004). The recommended K σ relation-
ship expressed in terms of relative density and the cyclic resistance
considering the influence of overburden effective stress (CRRσ 0 ),
as presented by Idriss and Boulanger (2008), is given in Eq. (31).
Calibration was performed based on Eq. (31) [Fig. 19(a)]. In the
calibration of the model, eight datasets of CFσ 0 from various initial
effective stresses were obtained for relative densities ranging be-
tween 0.2 and 0.8. The value of N liq was set to 15 cycles so that
CFratioNliq could be taken as 1.0. Then CFratioσ 0 was obtained using
Eq. (32), and sample values of CFratioσ 0 for effective stresses 50,
200, 400, and 800 kPa are shown in Fig. 19(b). It was determined
that CFratioσ 0 can be related to Dr by the power function in Eq. (32),
wherein the values of aσ 0 , bσ 0 , and cσ 0 can be obtained using
Eqs. (33)–(35), respectively. The K σ values recommended by
Idriss and Boulanger (2008) and those predicted by the calibrated
pore pressure model are shown in Fig. 20. The data predicted by
the calibrated pore pressure model were in fair agreement with the
recommended values. In Fig. 20, values at 800 kPa differ because
K σ was adjusted to amplify slightly the influence of the initial
effective stress at values greater than 400 kPa

© ASCE 04023059-9 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2023, 149(8): 04023059

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 118.235.15.191 on 05/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 19. Calibration considering effect of K σ : (a) calibrated curves under various initial effective stresses; and (b) variation of CFratioσ 0 with Dr for
various initial effective stresses.

If σ00 > 100 kPa

aσ 0 ¼ 3.484 × 10−8 · σ003 − 2.607 × 10−5 · σ002

þ 0.01114 · σ00 − 0.8966 ð33Þ

If σ00 ≤ 100 kPa

bσ 0 ¼ −7.17 × 10−5 · σ003 þ 0.0141 · σ002 − 0.8101 · σ00 þ 15.598

If σ00 > 100 kPa

bσ 0 ¼ 1.877 × 10−9 · σ003.161 þ 3.601 ð34Þ
If σ00 ≤ 100 kPa
cσ 0 ¼ 0.1729 · lnðσ00 Þ þ 0.206
If σ00 > 100 kPa

cσ 0 ¼ 5.3 × 10−9 · σ003 − 5.832 × 10−6 · σ002

þ 0.002978 · σ00 þ 0.7555 ð35Þ
Fig. 20. K σ values from Idriss and Boulanger (2008) and from
calibrated pore pressure model.
Verification of Calibrated Pore Pressure Model

To verify the calibrated pore pressure model, the variation of τ =σ00

CRRσ 0 ¼ K σ · CRR7.5 with N liq was predicted and compared with the data presented by


0  Boulanger and Ziotopoulou (2017) for clean sands in direct simple
1 σ0 shear tests (DSS). The coefficient of earth pressure at rest (K 0 ) was
¼ 1− · ln · CRR7.5 ð31Þ
18.9 − 17.3 · Dr 100 0.5 for the DSS data, which is the default value for the calibrated
pore pressure model. In the calibrated pore pressure model, K 0 is
utilized in the calculation of the relative state parameter index (ξ r ).
For reference, data from Boulanger and Ziotopoulou (2017) pre-
CFσ 0 b 0
CFratioσ 0 ¼ ¼ aσ 0 · Dr σ þ cσ 0 ð32Þ sented herein were based on failure at 3% shear strain, whereas
CF7.5 the complete liquefaction criterion was used for the predicted data.
In the simulations, τ =σ00 was predicted for N liq ranging between 2
If σ00 ≤ 100 kPa and 100. To verify CF7.5 and CFratioNliq , the behavior of clean sand
with an initial effective stress of 100 kPa is shown in Fig. 21. In
Fig. 21(a), both CFratioNliq and CFratioσ 0 are set to 1.0, whereas in
aσ 0 ¼ −2.03 × 10−6 · σ003 þ 5.33 × 10−4 · σ002 Fig. 22(b) CFratioNliq was obtained using Eq. (27). In both figures,
− 0.0412 · σ00 þ 0.8158 CF7.5 was applied using Eq. (23). Disregarding CFratioNliq resulted

© ASCE 04023059-10 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2023, 149(8): 04023059

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 118.235.15.191 on 05/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 21. Verification of calibrated pore pressure model considering the effect of earthquake magnitude: (a) CFratioNliq not considered; and
(b) CFratioNliq considered.

Fig. 22. Verification of calibrated pore pressure model when σ00 ¼ 400 kPa: (a) CFratioσ 0 not considered; and (b) CFratioσ 0 considered.

in a very clear disagreement with the DSS data at Dr ¼ 0.75
[Fig. 21(a)]. However, there was good agreement for N liq ¼ 15
cycles, verifying Eq. (23). Using Eq. (27), the curves became steeper,
resulting in better agreement with the DSS data [Fig. 21(b)]. To
verify the calibrated pore pressure model considering the effect
of σ00 , DSS data from Boulanger and Ziotopoulou (2017) for an
initial effective stress of 400 kPa were compared with the predicted
data obtained by the calibrated pore pressure model (Fig. 22). The
pore pressure model that did not consider CFratioσ 0 resulted in the
overestimation of the τ =σ00 that can cause liquefaction. Considering
CFratioσ 0 by using Eq. (32) resulted in better agreement with the
data presented by Boulanger and Ziotopoulou (2017).
To test the performance of the calibrated pore pressure model
with another sand, the behavior of Fraser sand in the DSS was si-
mulated (Fig. 23). The coefficient of earth pressure at rest (K 0 ) was
0.5 for the DSS data, which is the default value for the calibrated
pore pressure model. For further comparison, data predicted by
the UBCSAND constitutive model developed by Beaty and Byrne
(2011) and by PLAXIS 2D using the UBC3D-PLM constitutive
model, as reported by Petalas and Galavi (2013), also are shown in
Fig. 23. Because MSF or Mw is a necessary input parameter in
the pore pressure model, MSF was taken as ðτ =σ00 Þ=ðCRR7.5 Þ,
wherein CRR7.5 was obtained using Eqs. (21) and (22). In
Fig. 23(a), it was necessary to reduce the input relative density
for the pore pressure model to 0.34 so that the number of cycles
to complete liquefaction under a shear stress loading of 8.26 kPa
would equal 17 cycles. In Fig. 23(a), if Dr ¼ 0.4 had been used as
an input parameter, the number of cycles to complete liquefaction
predicted by the calibrated pore pressure model would have been
28 cycles. For Figs. 23(b and c), the same relative density, 0.34,
was used as an input parameter because the actual relative density
of the soil also was 0.4. In Fig. 23(d), the relative density was
reduced to 0.762 so that the number of cycles to complete lique-
faction would be 21 cycles under a shear stress loading of 29 kPa.

© ASCE 04023059-11 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2023, 149(8): 04023059

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 118.235.15.191 on 05/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 23. Simulation of Fraser sand in DSS using the calibrated pore pressure model: (a) Dr ¼ 0.4, τ =σ00 ¼ 0.0826; (b) Dr ¼ 0.4, τ =σ00 ¼ 0.1;
(c) Dr ¼ 0.4, τ =σ00 ¼ 0.12; and (d) Dr ¼ 0.8, τ =σ00 ¼ 0.29.
In Fig. 23(d), noticeable fluctuations of the measured normalized
excess pore water pressure (U) are evident even for U < 0.5. This
noticeable behavior was not portrayed by either UBCSAND or
the pore pressure model. The predicted curves in Fig. 23(d)
followed the lower bound values of U, and increased suddenly for
U > 0.5.
The discrepancies between the measured and predicted data in
Fig. 23 were caused mainly by the difference of the cyclic resistance
of the clean sand and Fraser sand. Although the main objective of
this research was to calibrate the pore pressure model based on clean
sand, it may be necessary to obtain different sets of calibration fac-
tors for other soils, because the CRR7.5 and N liq of each soil may
vary from one another and depending on the test method. Specifi-
cally, the CRR7.5 and CF7.5 are very significant in the calibration of
the pore pressure model because they define the liquefaction resis-
tance of a soil, and control CFratio. The MSF-N liq relationship in
Fig. 15 was biased toward clean sand because data were taken from
Seed and Idriss (1982) and Boulanger and Ziotopoulou (2017). In
addition, the CRR7.5 for Fraser sand at Dr ¼ 0.40 was observed to
be different in comparison with the CRR7.5 proposed by Youd et al.
(2001) and Idriss and Boulanger (2004) for clean sand. Based on
Figs. 23(a–c), the CRR7.5 for Fraser sand at Dr ¼ 0.40 would be
0.0857. The CRR7.5 for clean sand at Dr ¼ 0.40 when ðN 1 Þ60 ¼
7.36 is 0.0906 and 0.1 based on the relationship given by Youd et al.
(2001) and Idriss and Boulanger (2004), respectively. For CRR7.5 ¼
0.1, the MSF when Dr ¼ 0.40, σ00 ¼ 100 kPa, and τ ¼ 12.0 kPa
would be 1.20. The number of cycles to complete liquefaction ðN liq Þ
would be estimated to be 8.0 for MSF ¼ 1.20 using Eq. (25),
whereas in the measured data shown in Fig. 23(c) for Fraser
sand, the number of cycles to complete liquefaction was about 3.0.
The simulation by Beaty and Byrne (2011) for Fraser sand used
ðN 1 Þ60 ¼ 6.9 instead of 7.36 for Dr ¼ 0.4. Hence, they obtained
CRR7.5 ¼ 0.0865, which is closer to that of the CRR7.5 for Fraser
sand. In the pore pressure model, the relative density had to be
© ASCE 04023059-12
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2023, 149(8): 04023059
reduced so that the CRR7.5 would be closer to that of Fraser sand.
In all cases in Fig. 23, the calibrated pore pressure model was able to
predict a pore pressure rise almost similar to those of UBCSAND
and PLAXIS UBC3D-PLM. Despite using different relative den-
sities as an input parameter for the calibrated pore pressure model,
the value of Dr utilized by the model still was in the range 5%–15%
of the actual relative density, and the pore pressure rise of Fraser
sand in the DSS still was represented fairly by the calibrated pore
pressure model.
The behavior of various soils in different test devices for Dr ¼
0.4 to 0.5 is shown in Fig. 24. Taking Dr ¼ 0.45 as an input param-
eter, the predicted CSR versus N liq curve based on the calibrated
pore pressure model was nearer to the experimental data from the
direct simple shear test for Ottawa sand (Finn et al. 1971), the ring
torsion test for Niigata sand (Yoshimi and Oh-Oka 1975), and the
shaking table test for Monterey sand (Seed et al. 1975). If the origi-
nal pore pressure model was not calibrated, the predicted curve
would be similar to that of the experimental results of the Ottawa
sand in the torsional simple shear device (Sherif et al. 1977), and
close to that of the experimental results of the Quebec sand in the
cyclic triaxial device (Kashila et al. 2020). The CSR curve pre-
dicted by the calibrated pore pressure model was close to that
of Ottawa sand in the direct simple shear test (Fig. 24).
Practical Application of the Pore Pressure Model
The liquefaction potential evaluation of the soil is one the main
applications of the calibrated pore pressure model. To evaluate the
liquefaction potential of a soil at a certain density, initial effective
stress, and earthquake magnitude (Mw ) using the calibrated pore
pressure model, the following steps should be followed:
1. utilize a reliable relationship between Mw and MSF from the lit-
erature to obtain the magnitude scaling factor of the earthquake;
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 118.235.15.191 on 05/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 24. Behavior of various soils in different test devices for
Dr ¼ 0.4–0.5.
2. determine the equivalent number of cycles to complete liquefac-
tion ðN liq Þ using Eq. (25) based on the MSF;
3. determine the overall calibration factor CF using Eqs. (19), (23),
(27), and (32) based on the parameters Dr , σ00 , and N liq ;
4. determine parameters CFcrit and αcrit based on Dr ;
5. determine ðτ =σ00 Þcrit based on Dr , ϕcv , ξ r , and nb ;
6. after obtaining the above parameters, apply Eqs. (12)–(15) to
predict the pore pressure rise of the soil at any cyclic shear load-
ing; and
7. determine the cyclic shear loading that can cause complete
liquefaction at N liq as the CRR.
Limitations of the Pore Pressure Model
The calibrated pore pressure model presented in this study pro-
duced excellent results predicting the liquefaction resistance based
on clean sand. However, the model has some limitations, and re-
quires additional aspects to be considered in order to replicate
closely the actual behavior of various soils. Basically, the original
model was developed based on the behavior of Ottawa sand in the
torsional simple shear device. However, the original model clearly
was biased regarding the behavior of the soil in the device. To re-
move such bias and to consider various factors that affect liquefac-
tion resistance, calibration of the original pore pressure model to
that of clean sand was necessary. Hypothetically, if Ottawa sand
was tested in another device, the original model constants such as
C1, C2, C3, and α may have been different from those originally
obtained by Sherif et al. (1978). The shape of the liquefaction
resistance curve for N liq ¼ 15 and σ 00 ¼ 100 kPa also may have
been different from that initially obtained in Fig. 1 for Ottawa sand.
Varying behaviors of pore pressure rise also are to be expected from
different soils in various test devices.
It is possible to derive new sets of values of C1, C2, C3, α, and
other parameters such as CFcrit , αcrit , and ðτ =σ00 Þcrit for other soils.
However, extensive testing of the soil at various densities and cy-
clic shear loading is required to derive such parameters. It also
© ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2023, 149(8): 04023059
is feasible to derive the necessary parameters of the original pore
pressure model using well-known constitutive models and their
calibrated constants for various soils. However, these constitutive
models usually are only available in commercial finite-element pro-
grams, which sometimes are costly. Nonetheless, the determination
of constants C1, C2, and C3 of the original model was based di-
rectly on the behavior of a soil in a specific device and its test pro-
cedures. This is the main reason why constitutive models have been
proposed and recommended by many. Constitutive models can an-
alyze the stress–strain response of a soil while simultaneously evalu-
ating the pore pressure changes based on volume change. To predict
the liquefaction resistance of another soil using the pore pressure
model, it is more practical to introduce new calibration factors based
on the behavior of the tested soil. One solution is to incorporate a
calibration factor that considers the effect of fines content, which
then widens the application of the current pore pressure model to
silty soils.
Another limitation of the pore pressure model is its reliance on
the complete liquefaction criterion. Beaty and Byrne (2011) as-
sumed that liquefaction occurs when the normalized total excess
pore-water pressure (U) exceeds 0.85 or when the maximum shear
strain exceeds 3%. Because the current pore pressure model cannot
evaluate the shear strains and is only stress-based, the complete
liquefaction criterion was used to represent the manifestation of
liquefaction. However, soils experiencing static bias may never
reach a condition wherein the effective stress nearly equals the ex-
cess pore-water pressure despite having behavior that is consistent
with liquefaction, such as when the shear strains exceed 3%. Beaty
and Byrne (2011) mainly used the stress-based criterion of U ¼
0.85 for soils with low densities, whereas the shear strain criterion
of 3% often was satisfied for denser soils and for those with static
bias. Data analyzed in this study did not involve static bias, and
hence the model gave favorable results. Calibration of the model
with static bias can be done by simplifying the model to achieve
complete liquefaction. However, this may not fairly represent the
actual behavior of the soil in the field and in laboratory tests. The
use of a limiting U may have to be incorporated in the model if
necessary. In addition, because strains are not considered in the
current model, the contractive and dilative behavior, including fluc-
tuations of the pore pressure during cyclic shear loading, cannot be
modeled.
Conclusions
A method of adjusting the incremental pore pressure rise by use of
calibration factors is introduced so that the pore pressure model can
be calibrated based on the effect of the peak stress ratio, earthquake
magnitude, and initial stress levels. In this study, the complete lique-
faction criterion, defined as a state wherein the excess pore water
pressure equals the initial effective stress, was used in the calibration.
The shape of the excess pore-water pressure curve was considered
by incorporating the critical stress ratio concept. The critical stress
ratio concept allows for the consideration of the sudden rise in pore
pressure at a certain stress ratio. At that certain stress ratio, CFcrit was
suggested to take values greater than 1.0, and α was suggested to
increase to 2.83 times its initial value such that the transition from
the constant rate of pore pressure rise to the sudden pore pressure rise
agrees well with the behavior of clean sand in direct simple shear
tests. The critical stress ratio ðτ =σ 0 Þcrit was related to the peak stress
ratio ðτ =σ 0 Þpeak to easily obtain the ðτ =σ 0 Þcrit at any density, and
to allow for the consideration of the effect of the constant friction
angle ϕcv .
04023059-13 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 After accounting for the shape effects of the pore pressure rise
during cyclic loading of clean sand, the pore pressure model was
calibrated based on the clean-sand base curve using a rational func-
tion, and by setting the initial effective stress to 100 kPa and the
number of cycles to 15. To consider the effect of earthquake mag-
nitude, a relationship between the magnitude scaling factor and the
number of cycles to liquefaction ðN liq Þ is proposed. Sets of CRR
curves based on MSF were obtained, and their corresponding N liq
was used to obtain CFratioNliq . The cyclic strength curves based
on the initial effective stress were then adjusted using K σ values
proposed in the literature, enabling CFratioσ 0 to be obtained.
After the calibration factors were determined, the calibrated
pore pressure model was verified by comparing data presented in
the literature for clean sand and Fraser sand in direct simple shear
tests, which showed that the model adequately predicted the behav-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 118.235.15.191 on 05/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ior of the soils in the DSS. Calibration of the pore pressure model
considering the effects of fines content, K 0 , and static bias, as well
as validation of the calibrated pore pressure model under earth-
quake loading, will be presented in a future study.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program
through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded
by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2021R1A6A1A0304518511
and NRF-2020R1I1A3A04036506).
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
aNliq = constant that determines CFratioNliq ;
aσ 0 = constant that determines CFratioσ 0 ;
bNliq = constant that determines CFratioNliq ;
bσ 0 = constant that determines CFratioσ 0 ;
C1 = constant in Eq. (4);
C2 = constant in Eq. (4);
C3 = constant in Eq. (4);
CF = overall calibration factor;
CFcrit = additional calibration factor applied when
0
(τ N =σN−1 ) is greater than or equal to the critical
stress ratio;
CFσ 0 = calibration factor for initial effective stress;
CF7.5 = calibration factor for magnitude 7.5 earthquake;
CFratio = ratio of overall CF to CF7.5 ;
CFratioNliq = calibration factor ratio for earthquake magnitude or
number of cycles to liquefaction;
CFratioσ 0 = calibration factor ratio for initial effective stress;
CRRMw = cyclic resistance ratio at certain earthquake
magnitude;
CRRσ 0 = cyclic resistance considering the influence of
overburden effective stress;
CRR7.5 = cyclic resistance ratio of clean sand for magnitude
7.5 earthquake;
cNliq = constant that determines CFratioNliq ;
© ASCE 04023059-14
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2023, 149(8): 04023059
cσ 0 = constant that determines CFratioσ 0 ;
Dr = relative density;
K σ = overburden correction factor;
K 0 = coefficient of earth pressure at rest;
Mw = moment magnitude;
N = current stress cycle;
N̄ = constant multiplier in Eq. (3), which characterizes
the effect of the number of stress cycles;
N eq = equivalent number of cycles;
N eq;n = negative equivalent number of cycles;
N eq;p = positive equivalent number of cycles;
N liq = number of cycles to liquefaction;
ðN 1 Þ60 = corrected standard penetration test blow count
considering field procedures and overburden
pressure;
nb = parameter determining the value of the peak stress
ratio;
U = normalized total excess pore-water pressure;
u = total excess pore-water pressure;
0
α = power of stress ratio (τ N =σN−1 ) in Eq. (3);
αcrit = αi × 2.83;
αi = initial value of α;
ΔU = normalized incremental excess pore water pressure;
ΔU N;calib = calibrated normalized incremental excess pore
pressure rise during the Nth cycle;
ΔU N;n = normalized incremental excess pore pressure rise
due to negative cyclic shear stress τ N;n during the
Nth cycle;
ΔU N;p = normalized incremental excess pore pressure rise
due to positive cyclic shear stress τ N;p during
Nth cycle;
Δu = incremental excess pore water pressure rise;
ξ r = relative state parameter index;
σ 0 = effective pressure;
σ00 = initial effective pressure;
τ = shear stress;
ðτ =σ 0 Þcrit = critical stress ratio;
ðτ =σ 0 Þpeak = peak stress ratio;
τ N;n = negative cyclic shear stress during Nth cycle;
τ N;p = positive cyclic shear stress during Nth cycle;
ϕcv = constant friction angle; and
ϕpeak = peak friction angle.
References
Andrus, R. D., and K. H. Stokoe. 1997. “Liquefaction resistance based
on shear wave velocity.” In Proc., NCEER Workshop on Evaluation
of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, 89–128. Bufallo, NY: National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
Beaty, M. H., and P. M. Byrne. 2011. “UBCSAND constitutive model
version 904aR.” Accessed February 1, 2011. https://bouassidageotechnics
.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/ubcsand_udm_documentation.pdf.
Boulanger, R. W. 2003. “High overburden stress effects in liquefaction
analyses.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 129 (12): 1071–1082. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:12(1071).
Boulanger, R. W., and I. M. Idriss. 2004. “State normalization of penetration
resistances and the effect of overburden stress on liquefaction resis-
tance.” In Vol. 2 of Proc., 11th Int. Conf. on Soil Dynamics and Earth-
quake Engineering, and 3rd Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering, 484–491. Singapore: Stallion Press.
Boulanger, R. W., and K. Ziotopoulou. 2017. PM4Sand (version 3.1):
A sand plasticity model for earthquake engineering applications.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Rep. No. UCD/CGM-17/01. Davis, CA: Center for Geotechnical
Modeling, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
California.
Castro, G. 1969. “Liquefaction of sands.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Engineer-
ing and Applied Physics, Harvard Univ.
Cetin, K. O., R. B. Seed, A. Der Kiureghian, K. Tokimatsu, L. F. Harder Jr.,
R. E. Kayen, and R. E. S. Moss. 2004. “Standard penetration test-based
probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction
potential.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 130 (12): 1314–1340. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:12(1314).
Elgamal, A. W., R. Dobry, E. Parra, and Z. Yang. 1998. “Soil dilation and
shear deformations during liquefaction.” In Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on
Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, 1238–1259. Rolla,
MO: Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology.
Finn, W. D. L., J. J. Emery, and Y. P. Gupta. 1970. “A shaking table study
of the liquefaction of saturated sands during earthquakes.” In Proc.,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 118.235.15.191 on 05/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
3rd European Symp. on Earthquake Engineering, 253–262. Sofia,
Bulgaria: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
Finn, W. D. L., D. J. Pickering, and P. L. Bransby. 1971. “Sand liquefaction
in triaxial and simple shear tests.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 97 (4):
639–659. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001579.
Harder, L. F., and R. W. Boulanger. 1997. “Application of Kσ and Kα
correction factors.” In Proc., NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of
Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, edited by T. L. Youd and I. M.
Idriss, 167–190. Buffalo, NY: National Center for Earthquake Engi-
neering Research.
Hynes, M. E., and R. Olsen. 1998. “Influence of confining stress on lique-
faction resistance.” In Proc., Int. Symp. on the Physics and Mechanics of
Liquefaction, 145–152. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Balkema.
Idriss, I. M., and R. W. Boulanger. 2004. “Semi-empirical procedures for
evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes.” In Vol. 1 of Proc.,
11th Int. Conf. on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, and 3rd
Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, 32–56. Singapore:
Stallion Press.
Idriss, I. M., and R. W. Boulanger. 2008. Soil liquefaction during earth-
quakes. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Ishibashi, I., M. A. Sherif, and C. Tsuchiya. 1977. “Pore-pressure rise
mechanism and soil liquefaction.” Soils Found. 17 (2): 17–27. https://
doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.17.2_17.
Ishihara, K., and S.-I. Li. 1972. “Liquefaction of saturated sand in triaxial
torsion shear test.” Soils Found. 12 (2): 19–39. https://doi.org/10.3208
/sandf1972.12.19.
Kashila, M., M. N. Hussein, M. Karray, and M. Chekired. 2020.
“Liquefaction resistance from cyclic simple and triaxial shearing: A
comparative study.” Acta Geotech. 16 (Jun): 1735–1753. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s11440-020-01104-6.
Konstadinou, M., and V. N. Georgiannou. 2014. “Prediction of pore
water pressure generation leading to liquefaction under torsional cyclic
loading.” Soils Found. 54 (5): 993–1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.sandf.2014.09.010.
© ASCE 04023059-15
View publication stats J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2023, 149(8): 04023059
Ladd, R. S., and M. L. Silver. 1975. “Discussion of ‘Soil liquefaction by
torsional simple shear device’.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 101 (8): 827–829.
https://doi.org/10.1061/AJGEB6.0001427.
Petalas, A., and V. Galavi. 2013. “Plaxis liquefaction model UBC3D-PLM.”
Accessed June 7, 2013. https://communities.bentley.com/cfs-file/__key
/communityserver-wikis-components-files/00-00-00-05-58/UBC3D_2D00
_PLM_2D00_REPORT.June2013.pdf.
Seed, H. B. 1981. “Earthquake-resistant design of earth dams.” In Proc.,
First Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake En-
gineering and Soil Dynamics, 1157–1173. Rolla, MO: Missouri Univ.
of Science and Technology.
Seed, H. B., I. Arango, and C. K. Chan. 1975. Evaluation of soil liquefac-
tion potential for level ground during earthquakes: A summary report.
Rep. No. NUREG-0026. Seattle: Shannon and Wilson. https://doi.org
/10.2172/7146067.
Seed, H. B., and I. M. Idriss. 1982. Ground motions and soil liquefaction
during earthquakes, 134. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Re-
search Institute.
Seed, H. B., and W. H. Peacock. 1971. “Test procedures for measuring
soil liquefaction characteristics.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 97 (8):
1099–1119. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001649.
Seed, H. B., K. Tokimatsu, L. F. Harder, and R. M. Chung. 1985. “Influ-
ence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations.”
J. Geotech. Eng. 111 (12): 1425–1445. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9410(1985)111:12(1425).
Sherif, M. A., I. Ishibashi, and C. Tsuchiya. 1978. “Pore-pressure predic-
tion during earthquake loadings.” Soils Found. 18 (4): 19–30. https://doi
.org/10.3208/sandf1972.18.4_19.
Sherif, M. A., C. Tsuchiya, and I. Ishibashi. 1977. Pore pressure rise of
saturated sands during cyclic loading. Washington, DC: Univ. of
Washington.
Wei, J. 2021. “DEM exploration of confining stress effect in cyclic lique-
faction of granular soils.” Comput. Geotech. 136 (Aug): 104214. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104214.
Yang, M., M. Taiebat, and F. Radjaï. 2022. “Liquefaction of granular ma-
terials in constant-volume cyclic shearing: Transition between solid-like
and fluid-like states.” Comput. Geotech. 148 (Aug): 104800. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.104800.
Yoshimi, Y., and H. Oh-Oka. 1975. “A ring torsion apparatus for
simple shear tests.” In Proc., 8th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 501–506. London: International Society for
Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.
Youd, T. L., et al. 2001. “Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report
from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER=NSF workshops on evalu-
ation of liquefaction resistance of soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
127 (10): 817–833. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)
127:10(817).
Yu, J.-K., R. Wang, and J.-M. Zhang. 2022. “Importance of liquefaction
resistance and fabric anisotropy simulation capability of constitutive
models for liquefiable ground seismic response analysis.” Comput.
Geotech. 150 (Oct): 104928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2022
.104928.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.