Chen-2019-Excess Pore-Water Pressure Generation in Cyclic Undrained Testing

Excess Pore-Water Pressure Generation in
Cyclic Undrained Testing

Guoxing Chen 1; Dingfeng Zhao 2; Weiyun Chen 3; and Charng Hsein Juang, F.ASCE 4
Abstract: A new strain-based model is presented in this paper for assessing the residual excess pore-water pressure (ue ) buildup in fully
saturated sands. In this model, the generation of residual ue is quantified by the volumetric strain changes owing to cyclic shearing. The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southeast University on 11/22/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
concept of threshold shear strain is introduced into the model. To characterize the generation of residual ue in this model, a number of tests,
including one resonant column test, a series of undrained and drained multistage, and single-stage strain-controlled cyclic triaxial (CTX) tests,
are performed with fully saturated fine sand samples. The cyclic shear-volume coupling equation and the correlation between the progressive
increase of residual ue during undrained CTX test and the accumulated volumetric strain during drained CTX test are established. Further-
more, a simple bulk modulus equation is derived by differential method. Finally, the general applicability of the proposed model is validated
by the experimental data for the same sand, and independent confirmations are also demonstrated with the original experimental data for
four sands, obtained from the literature. The proposed pore-water pressure model provides new insights into the mechanics of residual excess
pore-water pressure buildup under undrained cyclic loading conditions. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002057. © 2019 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Pore-water pressure model; Residual excess pore-water pressure; Threshold shear strain; Cyclic shear-volume coupling;
Accumulated volumetric strain; Saturated sand; Cyclic triaxial test.
Introduction most susceptible to earthquake-induced liquefaction, and the gen-

eration characteristics of ue in sandy soils have been extensively
During strong earthquake shaking, the increase of residual excess studied in laboratory cyclic tests (Lee and Albaisa 1974; Seed
pore-water pressure (ue ) in saturated loose sandy soils may cause et al. 1975; Dobry et al. 1985; Cetin and Bilge 2011; Park et al.
liquefaction. In addition, the increased ue during an earthquake can 2015; Porcino and Diano 2017).
lead to a severe reduction in strength and stiffness. It can also in- During the past 50 years, a number of methodologies, which are
fluence the characteristics of ground motion propagation, the sta- grouped under the categories of stress-based, strain-based, energy-
bility of geotechnical structures, and the seismic performance of based, plasticity theory-based, and so on, were proposed to predict
infrastructures such as tunnels and bridges. Soil liquefaction from quantitatively the generation of residual ue . Seed et al. (1975) first
the accumulation of ue is a major cause of ground subsidence or proposed a stress-based model of ru for saturated clean sand as a
lateral spreading (Seed 1968; Tokimatsu and Katsumata 2012). The function of cycle ratio, which was later expanded by Booker et al.
generation of ue in sandy soils during undrained cyclic loading can (1976), who proposed a simplified version of the Seed et al. (1975)
be classified into two components: transient and residual. The tran- model. Baziar et al. (2011) proposed a modified version of the
sient ue has little influence on the effective stresses acting on the Booker et al. (1976) model for sand with large amounts of silt.
soil, while the residual ue resulting from the progressive collapse of However, the original and modified versions of the Seed et al.
the soil skeleton (plastic deformations) can influence the strength (1975) model have difficulty in defining and estimating the number
and stiffness of the soil. The residual ue is often quantified in terms of cycles N l required to cause initial liquefaction, defined as ru ¼
of excess pore-water pressure ratio (ru ). Correspondingly, ru is de- 1.0 or the double amplitude axial strain εda ¼ 5%. Recently, Park
fined as the ratio of the residual ue to the initial effective confining et al. (2015) developed a model of ru that uses the concept of dam-
stress acting on the soil during the cyclic testing, in which the mag- age parameter to transform the cycle ratio based on the pore-water
nitude of ru varies from 0 (no plastic deformation) to 1 (complete pressure model of Seed et al. (1975) to a model based on accumu-
liquefaction). Therefore, the value of ru provides more insight than lated shear stress. The main advantage of the Park et al. (2015)
the magnitude of the residual ue alone. Saturated fine sands are model over the stress-based models is that there is no need to define
the equivalent number of cycles a priori, as in the model of Seed
1
Professor, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Nanjing Tech Univ., et al. (1975). In fact, the cyclic strain-controlled tests can produce
Nanjing 210009, China (corresponding author). Email: gxc6307@163.com more consistent and realistic excess pore-water pressure data than
2
Ph.D. Student, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Nanjing Tech those obtained from stress-controlled tests, which can alleviate the
Univ., Nanjing 210009, China. effect of soil fabric and sample disturbance (Silver and Seed 1971b;
3
Associate Professor, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Nanjing Dobry et al. 1982, 1985). On the basis of the results of strain-
Tech Univ., Nanjing 210009, China. controlled cyclic direct simple shear (CDSS) tests, the strain-based
4
Glenn Professor Emeritus, Glenn Dept. of Civil Engineering, Clemson
model of ue was proposed by Martin et al. (1975), which was later
Univ., Clemson, SC 29634.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 19, 2018; approved on simplified by Byrne (1991). The Martin et al. (1975) model of ue
December 19, 2018; published online on April 25, 2019. Discussion period generated per cycle is dependent on the plastic volumetric strain,
open until September 25, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted for the rebound modulus of the soil, and the stiffness of the pore water.
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and On another path, Dobry et al. (1982) attempted to link the cyclic
Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241. shear straining to the generation of ue and developed a unique
© ASCE 04019022-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019022

Strain-controlled tests Stress-controlled tests, Dr = 49% Sand and reference Dr Failure criterion and note
(in this paper) (Wang et al. 2010) Nanjing fine sand (Wu et al. 2018) 50% r u = 1
Nanjing Nanjing fine sand (Wang et al. 2010) 49% r u = 1
fine sand Dr εa CSR CSR CSR
Ottawa #20-30 Silica sand
(Failure 35% 0.10% 0.165 0.135 0.128 68% ru = 1
(Sandoval and Pando 2012) ε da-
criterion: 45% 0.15% 0.189 0.165 0.155
0.185 0.182 Monterey sand (LaVielle 2008) 65% r u = 1 Double axial
ru = 1) 50% 0.20% 0.223 0.230 0.204 Toyoura sand (Hyodo et al. 1991) 50% ε da = 5% amplitude strain
1.0 0.35
0.30
Excess pore pressure ratio, ru
0.8
Cyclic stress ratio, CSR

0.25
0.6
0.20
0.4
0.15
Seed et al’s model (1975)
0.2 with the parameter β = 0.70
0.10
Envelope of test data for Monterey sand and Cyclic triaxial test data
Sacramento River sand (Lee and Albaisa 1974)
0.0 0.05
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1 10 100 1000
(a) Cycle ratio, N/N l (b) Number of cycles required to cause initial liquefaction, N l
Fig. 1. Excess pore pressure ratio ru versus cycle ratio N=N l curves and the CSR versus number of cycles N l required to cause initial liquefaction
curves: (a) the bounds of ru proposed by Lee and Albaisa (1974) and Seed et al.’s (1975) model curve with the parameter β ¼ 0.7, and curves using
compiled data from the undrained tests of Wang et al. (2010); and (b) the CSR versus N l curves using compiled data from the undrained tests of
Hyodo et al. (1991), LaVielle (2008), Wang et al. (2010), Sandoval and Pando (2012), and Wu et al. (2018).
relationship among the ru , cyclic shear strain amplitude (γ), and the the excess pore-water pressure in sands and silts during cyclic
number of cycles (N) based on undrained strain-controlled cyclic loading is still a topic of interest in geotechnical earthquake
triaxial (CTX) test results. Subsequently, on the basis of the results engineering.
of Dobry et al. (1982) and the model of Martin et al. (1975), Dobry Schistous fine sand is distributed extensively along the middle
et al. (1985) proposed a simple model for the analytical modeling and lower Yangtze River valley in China. Because the engineering
and interpretation of ue as a function of undrained unloading modu- properties of schistous fine sand are quite different from those of
lus of the sand skeleton and volumetric strain tendency per cycle. siliceous sands, the findings from previous research on siliceous
The model based on extensive strain-controlled CDSS and CTX sands may not be applicable to schistous fine sand (Zhou 1999).
tests assumes that the residual pore-water pressure is a function In this study, the latter is referred to as Nanjing fine sand. Wang
of accumulated shear strain. The model was subsequently modified et al. (2010) and Wu et al. (2018) have performed laboratory experi-
by Vucetic and Dobry (1986) to allow for the effects of volumetric ments to study the behavior of residual pore pressure generation
threshold shear strain (γ tv ) and the two-directional horizontal shak- and liquefaction resistance of saturated Nanjing fine sand. Fig. 1
ing, and further developed by Matasovic and Vucetic (1993) to presents the compiled data points for various types of siliceous
more accurately model the degradation of shear modulus and shear sands in the form of ru versus cycle ratio (N=N l ) and the cyclic
stress induced by the accumulation of ue . The Martin et al. (1975) stress ratio (CSR) as a function of the N l . Here, CSR is defined
model is incorporated in the code DESRA-2 for nonlinear site as the ratio of the cyclic shear stress to the initial effective confining
response analysis and liquefaction (Lee and Finn 1978). The sub- pressure during testing. It can be observed that the generation pat-
routine in DESRA-2 for predicting the generation of ue was sub- terns of residual excess pore pressure for Nanjing fine sand during
sequently replaced by the model of Vucetic and Dobry (1986). This strain- and stress-controlled tests deviated from that recommended
resulted in an improved code for nonlinear site response analysis by Lee and Albaisa (1974) for Monterey sand and Sacramento
and liquefaction called DESRAMOD. The DESRAMOD was fur- River sand, indicating a larger discrepancy with the Seed et al.
ther modified into codes D-Mod (Matasovic and Vucetic 1993) and (1975) model. Furthermore, the liquefaction resistances of Nanjing
D-Mod2000 (Matasovic and Ordóñez 2010) for more complex fine sand and Toyoura sand at approximately the same relative den-
liquefaction site response analysis. The Matasovic and Vucetic sity (Dr ) are virtually equal to each other, but they are greater than
(1993) modification was also successfully incorporated in the code those of the Ottawa #20–30 silica sand and the Monterey sand. In
DeepSoil (Hashash 2012) for liquefaction site response analysis. addition, as shown in Fig. 1(a), because of the significantly differ-
Extensive investigations have provided considerable insight into ent strain and stress paths followed during these cyclic tests, there
the elicited behaviors of residual ue for sandy and silty soils. exists a significant difference in ru versus the N=N l curves from
Although the existing models on the generation of ue during earth- stress- and strain-controlled test data for saturated Nanjing fine
quakes have been widely accepted and implemented in the analysis sand. This demonstrates the general incompatibility between the
of liquefaction, there is no perfect model that is universally suitable two types of cyclic tests; thus, a simple comparison between stress-
for a wide variety of sands and silts. Research to further improve the and strain-controlled test data might be inadequate, and the result
generation of ue is warranted. Therefore, the generation model of could be misleading.

100
Nanjing fine sand
Chen et al. (2016)
80
Finer by weight (%)

In this paper
60
40
20 Crystal Silica No. 20 sand

(Silver and Seed 1971a)
0
10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size (mm)
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 2. (a) Nanjing fine sand; (b) photomicrograph of Nanjing fine sand; and (c) grain-size distribution curves in this paper and the complied data from
the tests of Silver and Seed (1971a) and Chen et al. (2016).
The findings by Martin et al. (1975) and Dobry et al. (1982) where σv0 and σv0 0 = effective vertical stress and initial effective ver-
strongly suggest that cyclic shear strain, rather than cyclic shear tical stress, respectively; m, n, and k2 = model coefficients; εvd =
stress, plays a determinative role in liquefaction in saturated sands. accumulated volumetric strain; and A1 , A2 , A3 , and A4 = constants
In the discussion of recent findings on liquefaction triggering of for the sand in question at the Dr (relative density) under
clean and silty sands during earthquakes, Dobry and Abdoun consideration.
(2017) reiterated that the excess pore-water pressure ratio (ru ) is Subsequently, given the unnecessary complexity and the unsta-
more uniquely related to cyclic shear strain amplitude (γ) than ble nature of Martin et al. (1975) model of the incremental volu-
to CSR. Therefore, it is desirable to establish a semiempirical equa- metric strain for clean sands, Byrne (1991) simplified the Martin
tion to predict the buildup of residual ue from the volumetric strain. et al. (1975) model via the following novel incremental volumetric
Specifically, the goal of the present study is to develop a simple strain correlation:
model for assessing the cyclic shear strain amplitude and the in-
duced residual ue of saturated sand. To this end, strain-controlled Δεvd ε
¼ C1 exp −C2 vd ð4Þ
drained and undrained CTX tests are conducted on saturated γ γ
Nanjing fine sand to establish an empirical correlation between
the cyclic shear strain amplitude, the volumetric strain, and the ex- where C1 and C2 = constants depending on the Dr of the sand in
cess pore pressure. Furthermore, the developed excess pore pres- question, and the constant C2 is related to C1 in accordance
sure model is also validated by the results of drained and undrained to C2 ¼ 0.4=C1 .
CTX tests for the same sand and the experimental data from the Eqs. (1) and (2) (Martin et al. 1975) and Eq. (4) (Byrne 1991)
literature. are all based on physical laws. For convenience in discussion, the
combination of Eqs. (1), (2), and (4) is referred to as the updated
Martin model. The test results presented subsequently, however,
indicate that the cyclic shear-volume coupling model [Eq. (4)] is
Amended Excess Pore-Water Pressure Model inadequate to predict εvd and ue for Nanjing fine sand. It was found
Martin et al. (1975) proposed a fundamental theoretical framework that the model [Eqs. (1) and (4)] significantly underestimated the
to predict the generation of ue on the basis of strain-controlled CDSS excess pore-water pressure generation. Thus, a correction to shear
tests performed on dry sand [Crystal Silica No. 20 sand, Fig. 2(c)]. strain to account for threshold shear strain (γ th ) is necessary to ob-
Based on the compatibility of the volume change of soil skeleton and tain a reasonable agreement with the test data for various liquefi-
the pore water, the original Martin et al. (1975) model correlation able sandy soils. The effect of γ th is considered by introducing an
between the tendencies of volumetric straining and excess pore- alternative γ to replace the variable γ in Eq. (4) as follows:
water pressure generation of saturated sand is expressed as γ ¼ ðγ − γ th ÞC3 ð5Þ
Δue ¼ Er Δεvd ð1Þ where C3 = constant for the sand in question. By combining Eqs. (4)
where Δue = increase of residual excess pore-water pressure caused and (5), the following equation is obtained:
by one cycle of cyclic shear strain amplitude (γ) during an undrained
Δεvd εvd
test; Er = tangent or rebound modulus of static one-dimensional (1D) ¼ C1 exp −C2 ð6Þ
ðγ − γ th ÞC3 ðγ − γ th ÞC3
drained unloading curve corresponding to the initial effective vertical
stress; and Δεvd = change in volumetric strain owing to the cyclic Dobry et al. (1982) introduced the concept of volumetric thresh-
shearing with the same cycle of γ during a drained test. The variables old shear strain (γ tv ) in sands and demonstrated that no excess pore-
Er and Δεvd are defined as follows: water pressure is generated when γ is lower than γ tv (at a level of
ðσv0 Þ1−m 0.01%). In the existing literature, four cyclic threshold shear strains
Er ¼ 0 Þn−m ð2Þ have been experimentally verified for cyclic settlement (compres-
mk2 ðσv0
sion), residual excess pore pressure, cyclic stiffening (hardening),
and cyclic degradation. The cyclic threshold shear strains deter-
A3 ε2vd mined using the aforementioned four different boundaries have dif-
Δεvd ¼ A1 ðγ − A2 εvd Þ þ ð3Þ
γ þ A4 εvd ferent values for the same sand. In this study, the term threshold

Table 1. Summary of the threshold shear strain γ th for clean and silty sands reported in the published laboratory data
Cyclic threshold
References Test type and comment Soil shear strain, γ th (%)
Dobry et al. (1982) Strain-controlled undrained CTX Fully saturated, clean Monterey No. 0 sands; 0.01–0.015
0
and Ladd et al. (1989) test, σc0 ≈ 24–192 kPa Dr ¼ 45%, 60%, and 80%
Chung et al. (1984) 0 ¼ 96 kPa
Resonant column test σc0 Monterey No. 0 sand; Dr ≈ 60%; fully 0.001–0.0026
saturated hollow, cylinder, and solid
specimens
NRC (1985), data Strain-controlled undrained CTX Eight different fully saturated, clean, and 0.01–0.015
0
attributed to Dobry test, σc0 ¼ 25–190 kPa silty sands; different specimen preparation
et al. (1982) methods; Dr ¼ 20% − 80%
Dyvik et al. (1984) Strain-controlled undrained CTX Saturated Banding sand, Dr ¼ 20% and 60% For K c ¼ 1.0–2.0
0
test, σc0 ¼ 96 kPa, K c ¼ 1.0–2.5 Monterey No. 0 sand, Dr ¼ 20% and 60% Banding sand = 0.008–0.009
Monterey No. 0 sand ≈ 0.01
Saturated Banding sand, Dr ¼ 40% and 60%
Dobry et al. (1985) Strain-controlled undrained CDSS, Banding sand = 0.017–0.045

CTX, and CTTX tests Monterey No. 0 sand, Dr ¼ 45% and 60% Monterey No. 0 sand = 0.035–0.09
0 ¼ 96 kPa; σ 0 ¼ 96 kPa
σv0 c0
Kim and Choo (2006)a Saturated undrained CTSS test Saturated Toyoura sand, Dr ¼ 40%, 50%, 0.01–0.025
0 ¼ 30–200 kPa
σc0 58%, 72%
Hazirbaba and Strain-controlled undrained CDSS Saturated Monterey #0/30 sand mixing with Clean sand ≈ 0.01
Rathje (2009) 0 ¼ 100 kPa
test, σv0 various nonplastic fines content, Dr ¼ 50% Silty sand ≈ 0.03
0 0
Note: σc0 = initial effective confining stress; σv0 = initial effective vertical consolidation stress; and K c = consolidated stress ratio.
a
The values of Dr for Kim and Choo (2006) are converted from the void ratio values using data in the literature (Lee et al. 2010).
shear strain, denoted as γ th , is defined as the cyclic shear strain Δue due
amplitude below which there is no residual excess pore pressure Er ¼ ¼ ð7Þ
Δεvd Δt→0 dεvd
buildup in the saturated sand during the undrained cyclic loading
test. The meaning of the volumetric threshold shear strain is practi-
cally the same as that associated with the start of residual excess Calibration of the Amended Excess Pore-Water
pore pressure buildup. Two mechanisms that act simultaneously are Pressure Model
believed to govern the complex cyclic behavior of sand: (1) the
stiffening of the sand structure due to the changes at particle con- In this section, one resonant column (RC) test and multistage strain-
tacts caused by the cyclic deformations and abrasion of their solid- controlled cyclic triaxial (MSCCTX) tests, one drained and one
to-solid mineral contact surfaces; and (2) the softening of the sand undrained, are first performed to identify the value of γ th and dy-
structure due to the reduction of effective stresses caused by the namic Poisson’s ratio (v). A series of drained single-stage, strain-
residual excess pore pressure buildup (Vucetic and Mortezaie controlled cyclic triaxial (SSCCTX) tests at the same axial strain
2015). Previous studies revealed that the γ th for many different amplitude (εa ) are then performed to calibrate the model correlation
sands is independent of initial effective confining stress, density, between Δεvd and (γ − γ th ), followed by the corresponding un-
and specimen fabric (Dobry et al. 1982; NRC 1985). In addition, drained SSCCTX tests to calibrate the bulk modulus (Er ) of sand,
the results of anisotropically consolidated undrained CTX tests on with the new coupling correlation between ru and εvd from the par-
saturated sand by Dyvik et al. (1984) showed that the value of γ th allel undrained and drained SSCCTX tests. Furthermore, the pre-
was unaffected by consolidation stress ratio in the range between dictive capacity of the proposed excess pore-water pressure model
1.0 and 2.5. Indeed, γ th is a constant characteristic of the sand for a is validated by the test data of the parallel undrained and drained
wide range of relative densities; thus, the use of γ th determined SSCCTX verification tests.
from isotropically consolidated specimens is either realistic or
slightly conservative. Similarly, the results of Kim and Choo (2006) Testing Materials
for sand revealed that the γ th increased slightly with increased ef-
The calibration and verification tests in this study were performed
fective confining pressure, and the γ th is almost independent of the
on saturated Nanjing fine sand, a natural schistous, fine, dark-
void ratio. However, the work of Dobry et al. (1985) showed that colored quartz sand, composed of chlorite, mica, clayey clastic
the γ th for sands is dependent of the densities and cyclic test types. materials, and weathered heavy minerals, with 10% grains that
Furthermore, the addition of fines results in an increase in the γ th are finer than 0.075 mm. The particle-size distribution and optical
(Hazirbaba and Rathje 2009). Table 1 presents a summary of the microscopic images of the fine sand are presented in Fig. 2, and
published γ th below which excess pore-water pressure does not the basic index properties of the fine sand used in these tests, de-
develop for various sandy soils and test types. As can be seen in termined according to ASTM test standards, are presented in
Table 1, the γ th values of sandy soils is distributed widely between Table 2.
0.001% and 0.09%, although for most sands it is 0.01%–0.03%.
Therefore, the measurement of threshold shear strain associated
with the residual excess pore pressure remains a challenging Testing Apparatus
endeavor. A dynamic hollow/solid cylinder apparatus (HCA) manufactured
If the time step Δt for increments Δue and Δεvd is infinitesimal, by GCTS Instruments (Tempe, Arizona) [Fig. 3(a)] is used for
the Er can be expressed in a differential equation of ue with respect the drained and undrained CTX tests in this study. The axial force
to εvd (or axial displacement), cell pressure, and back pressure can be

Table 2. Basic index properties of Nanjing fine sand used in the tests cycles is seen in Fig. 4. Thus, the effect of the bedding error on
Characteristics Value actual specimen would be negligible.
A resonant column testing apparatus manufactured by GCTS
Mean diameter, d50 (mm) 0.150
Instruments [Fig. 3(b)] is used for the dynamic shear modulus
Uniformity coefficient, Cu ¼ d60 =d10 2.11
Curvature coefficient, Cc ¼ d230 =ðd10 d60 Þ 0.97 and damping ratio test of fine sand in this study. The torque (or
Maximum void ratio, emax 1.210 rotation), the cell pressure, and the back pressure are all controlled
Minimum void ratio, emin 0.710 independently by the RC apparatus. The pore-water pressure sen-
Specific gravity, Gs 2.72 sors are located at the bottom plate. Table 3 shows the capacity and
Note: d10 , d30 , d50 , and d60 are the particle sizes corresponding to 10%,
measurement deviations of the sensors in RC apparatus under vari-
30%, 50%, and 60% finer on the cumulative particle-size distribution ous physical conditions. The data acquisition system has eight
curve, respectively. independent channels with a response frequency of 50 kHz, permit-
ting data recordings at intervals of less than 0.2 ms.
dynamically controlled independently, and the variable volume

Specimen Preparation, Saturation, and Test Program

constant pressure pump provides the power source. Table 3 shows
the capacity and measurement deviations of the sensors in HCA For CTX tests, all specimens were prepared, saturated, and consoli-
under various physical conditions. The fidelity of the results de- dated according to ASTM D5311-92 (ASTM 2004). Each solid
pends on the accuracy of the measurements of both stresses and cylinder specimen was 50 mm in diameter and 100 mm in height,
strains. Consequently, a rubber cylindrical dummy specimen of the with the reconstituted fine sand specimens prepared using the dry
same shape as that of the soil specimen was used to calibrate the vibration method to obtain a uniform density. After the specimen
measured data of all test specimens to determine errors from appa- was placed in the cell, the two stages of saturation (carbon dioxide
ratus compliance with reasonable certainty. The same test method flushing and de-aired water flushing) were carried out for the speci-
was also used to determine the deformation properties from very men. For complete saturation, each specimen was simultaneously
small to large strain levels, thus minimizing the deviations in the cell-pressurized and back-pressurized to 420 and 400 kPa, respec-
measured data elicited from the system. The absence of bedding tively (a 20-kPa effective confining pressure was maintained to
errors in the hysteretic loops at any strain level that could cause keep the sample structure during saturation), with a Skempton
lower stiffness in the initial cycles and higher stiffness in the later B-value of 0.97 or larger (Skempton 1954). After complete
SCON-2000 (signal conditioning and

Servo valve (axial) digital control unit)
Loading frame
Axial load Cell pressure actuator (3 MPa)
Back pressure actuator (1 MPa) Computer
Servo valve LVDT Inner/Back pressure actuator (1 MPa)
(torsional) (axial, ±79 mm)
SCON-1500 (signal conditioning
and digital control unit)
Computer
Loading transducer
(axial, ±100 kN; Air
torsional, ±225 Nm) compressor
Torsional
load LVDT
(torsional, ±40°)
LVDT Motor
(axial, ±7.5 mm) controller
Inner loading ~
P Rolling bearing
Transducer P
Motors (with a
(±4 kN) LVDT
P
torque sensor)
Plastic cell Cap (axial, ±7.9 mm)
Specimen
Rubber Plastic cell
membrane
Pedestal
Sliding
bearing
Cap
P
Specimen
Rubber
Ball valve Pore pressure
transducer (3 MPa) membrane
Hydraulic pump Pedestal
P
Power Accelerometer
Signal output P Pore pressure transducer
Feedback control Servo valve
(a) (b)
Fig. 3. Testing apparatuses manufactured by GCTS Instruments: (a) HCA; and (b) RC.

Table 3. Capacity, deviation, and precision of the test apparatuses in this study
Device Controller Capacity Deviation Precision
Dynamic hollow/solid cylinder apparatus Axial loading frequency ≤20 Hz
Cell/Back pressure frequency ≤10 Hz
Axial force 4 kN ≤0.1% FS 1N
Axial displacement 7.0 mm ≤0.1% FS 5 μm
Cell/back pressure 1.0 MPa=3.0 MPa ≤0.1% FS 0.1 kPa
Cell/back volume 2,000 mL=1,000 mL ≤0.1% FS 0.05 mL
Pore pressure 3.0 MPa ≤0.1% FS 0.1 kPa
Resonant column apparatus Peak/continuous torsional load 2.33 N · m=0.78 N · m
Stroke range 25°
Exciting frequency ≤250 Hz
Torque 2.0 N · m ≤0.1% FS 0.002 N · m
Accelerometer 1.0 g ≤0.1% FS 10−6 g
Cell/back pressure 1.0 MPa ≤0.1% FS 0.1 kPa

Cell/back volume 500 mL ≤0.1% FS 0.05 mL
Pore pressure 1.0 MPa ≤0.1% FS 0.1 kPa
Note: FS = full-scale range.
160 1.2
0.02
5th cycle

2
(kPa)
0 th 0.006
80 115 cycle 0.8 0.00
-2
d
0.000
0 2 4 6 8 10 -0.02
Deviator stress,
42 46 50
0 0.4 -0.006
0 2 4 6 8 10
15.0
7.5
-80 0.0 0.0
-7.5 45 th cycle
-15.0 175 th cycle
40 42 44 46 48 50
-160 -0.4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
(a) Number of cycles, N (b) Number of cycles, N
3 15 60 60
5th cycle 45 th cycle 115 th cycle 175 th cycle
2 10
40
(kPa)
30
1 5
d
20
Deviator stress,
0 0 0
0
-1 -5
-30
-20
-2 -10
-2 = 0.1%
a= 1.86×10 -3 % a= 1.01×10 % a a= 1%
-3 -15 -60 -40
-0.002 0.000 0.002 -0.010 0.000 0.010 -0.10 0.00 0.10 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
(c) Axial strain, (%) Axial strain, (%) Axial strain, (%) Axial strain, (%)
Fig. 4. Time histories of the deviatoric stress and excess pore pressure ratio and axial stress-strain hysteretic loops at any strain level for an undrained
MSCCTX test of saturated Nanjing fine sand at Dr ¼ 45%.
saturation, all the specimens were isotropically consolidated with initial consolidation and loading conditions. To study the respective
an effective mean principal stress of p00 ¼ 100 kPa. generations of εvd and ue under conditions of constant εa , 13
After consolidation, the strain-controlled CTX tests were under- drained and 7 undrained SSCCTX tests were performed. For
taken next, using the cyclic loading procedures outlined in ASTM drained SSCCTX tests, the 250-cycle strain-controlled cyclic load-
D3999/D3999M-11 (ASTM 2013). The cell pressure was main- ing was conducted on the specimens under drained condition.
tained constant, while a sinusoidal constant εa was applied at a fre- For undrained SSCCTX tests, strain-controlled cyclic loading
quency of 1.0 Hz. Table 4 shows the details of the CTX tests for the was conducted on the specimen under undrained condition until

Table 4. Schemes of the resonant column and isotropically consolidated cyclic triaxial tests
Relative Initial effective Axial strain
Test density, confining stress, amplitude, Number of
apparatus Test type Dr (%) 0 (kPa)
σc0 εa (%) specimens Testing purpose
RC Resonant column test 45 100 — 1 Determination of dynamic Poisson’s ratio,
HCA Drained MSCCTX test 45 100 0.002–1 1 threshold shear strain
Undrained MSCCTX test 45 100 0.002–1 1
Drained SSCCTX test 35, 45, 60, 70 100 0.05, 0.1, 0.15 12 Calibration of shear-volume coupling
Undrained SSCCTX test 45 100 0.05, 0.1, 0.15 3 [Eq. (6)], pore pressure-volume strain
35, 60, 70 100 0.1 3 [Eq. (15)], bulk modulus [Eq. (16)]
Drained SSCCTX test 50 100 0.2 1 Verification testing of pore pressure model
Undrained SSCCTX test 50 100 0.2 1 in Eqs. (6) and (15)
0.20 0.20

Dr = 35%, a= 0.05% Dr = 35%, a= 0.15%
0.15 0.15
Excess pore pressure ratio
0.10 Residual pore pressure ratio 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
-0.05 -0.05
-0.10 -0.10
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (s) Time (s)
0.20 0.20
Dr = 70%, a= 0.15%
Dr = 70%, a= 0.05%
0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
-0.05 -0.05
-0.10 -0.10
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (s) Time (s)
Fig. 5. Residual and transient excess pore pressure ratios of saturated Nanjing fine sand during drained SSCCTX tests.
ru ¼ 1 or 250 cycles. Fig. 5 shows the results of drained SSCCTX the cyclic loading, was released after the 10th cycle of cyclic load-
tests for saturated Nanjing fine sand. It can be observed that the ing during 15-min reconsolidation processes between two stages of
transient excess pore-water pressure ratios are less than 0.05 at εa ¼ cyclic loading. Thus, the initial consolidation stress state was re-
0.05% and 0.10 at εa ¼ 0.15%, respectively. More importantly, the gained. Fig. 6 shows the time histories of the axial strain, excess
residual excess pore-water pressure ratios, which directly affect pore-water pressure, and deviator stress for the reconsolidation
the plastic volumetric strains are nearly zero, indicating that the process of the undrained MSCCTX test. As seen in Fig. 6, all the
residual excess pore-water pressure dissipation was well controlled excess pore-water pressures during the undrained MSCCTX test
by the servosystem of the instrument. for Dr ¼ 45% have sufficiently dissipated during 15-min intervals
For drained and undrained MSCCTX tests, 18 stages of cyclic after each set of 10 cycles.
loadings for saturated specimens were applied using a strain- The undrained or drained Young’s modulus (Eu or Ed ) of soil is
controlled mode. A 10-cycle cyclic loading was performed on the determined from the hysteretic stress–strain relationships by the un-
specimen at each stage. The axial strain amplitude started from very drained or drained MSCCTX tests. The developments of εvd and ue
small level (in the order of 0.002%) and increased gradually stage during each cyclic stage under drained or undrained conditions, re-
by stage (until the order of 1.0%). Specifically, for the undrained spectively, were recorded to investigate the threshold axial strain.
MSCCTX test, the excess pore-water pressure in the saturated The threshold axial strain of the saturated specimen was previously
specimen, which was built up slightly during the application of defined as the cyclic strain amplitude that triggered the generation

The 1st cycle of loading The 91th cycle of loading The 161th cycle of loading
0.004 0.08 1.0
(%)
(%)
(%)
Isotropic Isotropic Isotropic
0.002 reconsolidation 0.04 reconsolidation 0.5 reconsolidation
Axial strain
Axial strain
Axial strain
0.000 0.00 0.0
-0.002 Drainage process -0.04 Drainage process -0.5 Drainage process
-0.004 -0.08 -1.0

0 5 10 45 80 490 900 0 5 10 45 80 490 900 0 5 10 80 150 530 910
Time t (s) Time t (s) Time t (s)
Excess pore pressure u (kPa)

1.0 40 Release the
100
excess pore 80
30 pressure Release the
0.5
60 excess pore
20
pressure
0 Isotropic
40 Isotropic
10 reconsolidation
reconsolidation
Release the 20
Isotropic
-0.5 excess pore reconsolidation 0
pressure 0
-1.0 -10 -20
0 5 10 45 80 490 900 0 5 10 45 80 490 900 0 5 10 80 150 530 910
Time t (s) Time t (s) Time t (s)
5 60 150
d (kPa)
d (kPa)
d (kPa)
3 40 100
Isotropic Isotropic
2
Deviator Stress
reconsolidation 20 Isotropic 50 reconsolidation

Deviator Stress
Deviator Stress
1 reconsolidation
0 0 0
-1
Keep d = 0 -20 Keep d = 0 -50
-2 Keep d = 0
-3 -40 -100
0 5 10 45 80 490 900 0 5 10 45 80 490 900 0 5 10 80 150 530 910
(a) Time t (s) (b) Time t (s) (c) Time t (s)
Fig. 6. Time histories of the axial strain, excess pore pressure, and deviator stress for the reconsolidation process of an undrained MSCCTX test after
(a) the first stage of cyclic loading (εa ¼ 0.002%); (b) the 10th stage of cyclic loading (εa ¼ 0.07%); and (c) the 17th stage of cyclic loading
(εa ¼ 0.7%).
of ue in the undrained condition or εvd in the drained condition. could provide a nearly analogous strain-dependent variation of
Fig. 4 illustrates the time histories of the deviatoric stress, ru , the shear modulus (G) within a wide strain range in the order
and the axial stress–strain hysteresis loops of a specimen for the of 10−6 to 10−3 compared to that of undrained tests (Kokusho
undrained MSCCTX test that corresponded to small, medium, 1980). Thus, the Skempton B-value exerts little influence on the
and large strains and spanned the entire strain range. Young’s G of the soil.
modulus is calculated from the hysteretic loop of the fifth cycle In the RC test, the specimen was set into motion in the torsional
of each stage that has been considered as the representative average mode of vibration after consolidation, based on the measurement
in the case of many prior earthquakes (Seed et al. 1986). procedure detailed in ASTM D4015 (ASTM 2007). The results of
The method used to prepare specimen for the RC test was iden- the RC test for resonant and free vibrations are shown in Fig. 7.
tical to that for CTX tests with solid cylindrical specimens 50 mm Since the first 10 cycles were ignored to obtain steady state at each
in diameter and 100 mm in height. Although the lack of a back loading frequency in the RC testing, Fig. 7(a) shows the resonant
pressure in the RC system makes it difficult to achieve a Skemp- vibration curve in a steady state for the next five cycles beginning
ton B-value of 0.95 (Skempton 1954), the drained CTX tests from the 11th cycle.
15 10 -11
The 11th cycle
Shear strain (×10 -6 )
Shear strain amplitude

Shear strain (×10 -6 )
10 1
5 N at the N cycle -12
5
ln( N)
0 0 -13
fitting curve
-5 test data of free vibration
-5 -14
-10 Decaying pattern of the
Resonant vibration Free vibration free vibration
Tn (1/fn)
-15 -10 -15
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
(a) Time (s) (b) Time (s) (c) Number of cycles , N
Fig. 7. Results of RC test for Dr ¼ 45% and γ ¼ 0.001%.

120 Drained MSCCTX test
Ed (MPa) Inversed a and Ed from RC test
80
1.2
N=5 Drained MSCCTX test: a=1%
40 N=5
-vd
0.8
0 1
120 Undrained MSCCTX test
r (%)
No Inversed a and E u from RC test
0.4
80
Eu (MPa)
Radial strain,
Deassigning vu
40 0.0
Iterating vu
N=5
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
-0.4
Axial strain, a (%)

60
RC test -0.8
50 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
G (MPa)
(b) Axial strain, a (%)

40
30
20
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
(a) Shear strain, (%)
Fig. 8. Test data obtained in drained and undrained MSCCTX tests and in RC test on the same saturated fine sand specimens with Dr ¼ 45% used to
determine dynamic Poisson’s ratios ν u (undrained) and ν d (drained).
Test Results of γ t h calculated from Eqs. (8)–(10) in the range of medium to large strain
shows significant differences from true value. Thus, a drained
Theoretically, G is a material constant associated with the con-
MSCCTX test was then performed to obtain the vd in the range
solidated state parameters, which means that the drained and
of medium to large shear strains (from γ > 10−2 %), which can be
undrained cyclic loading tests can provide a nearly analogous
expressed as follows:
strain-dependent G (Kokusho 1980; Clayton 2011), whereas the
Young’s modulus (E) is influenced by the occurrence of the soil Δεr
deformation in either the drained or undrained conditions (Ishihara vd ¼ − ð11Þ
1996). Previous studies revealed that the v of sand and gravel was a Δεa
strain-dependent parameter and increased as γ increased (Kokusho
1980; Menq 2003; Wang et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2016, 2018; Dutta where Δεr = radial strain increment; and Δεa = axial strain incre-
and Saride 2016). It should be noted that it is very complicated to ment. In the classical theory of elasticity, the Δεr of a specimen for
obtain an accurate measurement for v (Clayton 2011). Typical v drained CTX test can be calculated by the measured εa and εvd .
values of sands were 0.1–0.4 at smaller strain levels and were larger As shown in Fig. 8, these test data obtained from undrained and
than 0.5 at larger strain levels (Lambe and Whitman 1979). To over- drained MSCCTX tests and from RC test on the same saturated fine
come the difficulty of obtaining an accurate measurement of v in sand specimens with Dr ¼ 45% are used to determine the vu and
the same saturated specimen, the value of G obtained from the RC vd . The specific iterative method in Fig. 8(a) can be expressed as
test was combined with the Young’s modulus Eu (undrained) and follows: First, a target value (less than 0.1%) of the relative error of
Ed (drained) obtained from the multistage strain-controlled cyclic calculated Eu or Ed is specified. Next, the vu (or vd ) is given a trial
triaxial tests. Then, the values of vu (undrained) and vd (drained) value a priori, then the Eu (or Ed ) and εa are calculated using
can be easily expressed as (Kokusho 1980; Clayton 2011) Eqs. (8) [or Eq. (9)] and (10). This trial-and-error procedure is re-
peated to determine the value of Eu (or Ed ) with a relative error less
Eu than 0.1%. Thus, a data point of (γ i , Gi ) obtained from the RC test
vu ¼ −1 ð8Þ
2G can be converted to a set of (εai , Eui ) or (εai , Edi ) data points via
Eqs. (8) and (10) [or Eqs. (9) and (10)].
Ed Fig. 9 shows the results of the vu and vd versus the εa for sa-
vd ¼ −1 ð9Þ
2G turated fine sand over a wide axial strain range using different lab-
oratory tests. When εa is less than 0.01%, the values of vu and vd
γ ¼ ð1 þ νÞε ð10Þ are almost identical and are close to the values of vu obtained by
Chen et al. (2016). However, there was a remarkable increase in the
Thus, the v in a small shear strain region (up to γ ≈ 10−2 %) can effects of drainage conditions on the v when εa was greater than
be calculated from the test data of E and G. The formulation of 0.01%, This indicated a remarkable difference between the vu
Eqs. (8)–(10) is based on the assumption that the material is elastic, and vd values. In this study, the values of vu and vd for εa less than
homogeneous, and isotropic. For the reconstituted fine sand speci- 0.01% were determined using Eqs. (8)–(10), while the values of vd
men, only the v at a small strain is calculated using Eqs. (8)–(10), for εa greater than 0.01% were determined using Eq. (11). Simul-
and the assumptions are generally fulfilled. Therefore, the v taneously, Chen et al.’s (2016) test results of vu for εa greater than

Dr = 45%, vd , by radial strain increment as a practical threshold shear strain, could essentially distinguish
Drained MSCCTX test
Dr = 45%, vd , by elastic hypothesis linear from nonlinear behavior for saturated Nanjing fine sand.
Dr = 45%, vu , by elastic hypothesis Undrained MSCCTX test
Dr = 50%, vu , from Chen et al. (2016)
0.9 Test Results for εv d and u e
D r = 35% It may be observed in Fig. 11 that εvd increases monotonically as a
D r = 45% vd, by radial strain increment
function of the εa applied in the drained SSCCTX tests. For the
Dynamic Poisson's ratio , vd & vu
D r = 60% (Drained SSCCTX test)

0.7 D r = 70% same level of εa , the increasing rate of εvd reduces monotonically
as a function of the N. The values of εa ¼ 0.05%, 0.1%, and 0.15%
correspond to the values of γ ¼ 0.08%, 0.15%, and 0.23%, respec-
c0 100 kPa
tively, in terms of the vd values in Fig. 9. Thus, an alternative plot of
0.5 the data from that of Fig. 11(b) for Dr ¼ 45% is shown in Fig. 12.
0.60 Here, the strain ratio (εvd =γ) is plotted as a monotonically increas-
ing function of N for various levels of γ, along with a comparison
vd 0.55 of test results obtained by Martin et al. (1975) for Crystal Silica No.
0.3
20 sand with Dr ¼ 45%. The difference in the shape between the
0.50 two sand curves of εvd versus N is remarkable in Fig. 11(b).
30 50 80
Dr (%) Although the axes of εvd in Fig. 12 are parameterized in accordance
0.1 to γ, the three curves of Crystal Silica No. 20 sand collapse to a
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
single curve, while the three curves of Nanjing fine sand are dis-
Axial strain, a (%) tinctly separated. It is noted that the effect of γ on εvd for Nanjing
fine sand is significantly reduced, but this reduction is not linearly
Fig. 9. Comparison of dynamic Poisson’s ratios ν u (undrained) and ν d
correlated with increasing γ. However, the search for a more uni-
(drained) versus axial strain εa for saturated fine sand over a wide axial
versal correlation function of γ may solve this problem. Duku et al.
strain range obtained using different laboratory test methods here and
(2008) analyzed the correlation between εvd and N for Crystal
the data recompiled from the results of Chen et al. (2016).
Silica No. 2 sand and found that ðεvd ÞN =ðεvd Þ15 versus N generally
fell within a narrow zone, where ðεvd ÞN and ðεvd Þ15 are, respec-
tively, the value of εvd corresponding to N cycle and 15 cycles.
0.01% were taken. In addition, the influence of Dr on v is Similarly, for Nanjing fine sand, the results of drained SSCCTX
tests with various Dr show that the relationship between
negligible.
ðεvd ÞN =ðεvd Þ15 versus N, as well as ðεvd Þ15 versus γ (Fig. 13), is
Based on the values of vu and vd in Fig. 9, a set of (εai , εvdi ) data
defined, respectively, through curve-fitting of the test data
points obtained in a drained MSCCTX test, and a set of (εai , rui )
data points obtained in an undrained MSCCTX test, were converted ðεvd ÞN =ðεvd Þ15 ¼ B1 lnðB2 N þ B3 Þ ð12Þ
into a set of (γ i , εvdi ) and (γ i , rui ) data points. The plots of ru versus
γ for the undrained MSCCTX test, and the plots of εvd versus γ for ðεvd Þ15 ¼ CD ðγ − γ th ÞC3 ¼ CD γ ð13Þ
the drained MSCCTX test, are shown in Fig. 10(a). Here, the γ th for
the undrained MSCCTX test at which the ue begins to accumu- where B1 , B2 , and B3 are almost constants independent of the Dr
late is 0.014%. This is less than γ th ¼ 0.023% obtained in the (equal to 0.86, 0.15, and 0.96, respectively); C3 is almost a constant
drained MSCCTX test, at which γ th represents the boundary above independent of the Dr (C3 ¼ 1.25); and CD is a constant associated
which significant permanent volume changes occur. As shown in with Dr of sand [Fig. 13(a)].
Fig. 10(b), the results of the undrained MSCCTX test in this study Since Eq. (6) is obtained by differentiating Eq. (12) [combined
are very consistent with the lower-bound curve in National Re- with Eq. (13)] with respect to variable N (number of cycles),
search Council (NRC 1985). Therefore, the value of γ th ¼ 0.02%, C1 ¼ B1 B2 CD and C1 C2 ¼ B2 ¼ 0.15. The three constants
1.2 0 1.2
Envelope of the CTX test data ( )
NRC (1985){ Strained-controlled CTX test data
th = 0.023% 1.0 Dr = 20 – 80 (%)

1.0 1
(%)
In this paper
vd
0.8 10 cycles, Dr = 45% 2 0.8 undrained MSCCTX test

Volumetric strain,
Dr = 45%
vd (drained MSCCTX test)
ru (undrained MSCCTX test) undrained SSCCTX tests
0.6 3 0.6
Dr = 35%, 45%,
60%, 70%
0.4 4 0.4
0.2 5 0.2
th = 0.014 %
N = 10 cycles
0.0 6 0.0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
(a) Shear strain amplitude, (%) (b) Shear strain amplitude, (%)
Fig. 10. Excess pore pressure ratio ru from undrained MSCCTX test and volumetric strain εvd from drained MSCCTX test versus shear strain
amplitude γ in this paper and the recompiled data reported by NRC (1985) for eight different sands.

4.0 4.0
Dr = 35% 60% Dr = 45% 70% Dr = 45% = 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3%
3.5 a = 0.05% 3.5 a = 0.05% Crystal Silica No. 20 sand
vd (%) a = 0.10% a = 0.10% (Martin et al. 1975)
a = 0.15%
vd (%)
3.0 3.0 a = 0.15%
2.5 2.5
Volumetric strain,
Volumetric strain,
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
= 0.2%
1.0 1.0
= 0.1%
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250

(a) Number of cycles, N (b) Number of cycles, N
Fig. 11. Effect of relative density Dr on the curves of volumetric strain εvd versus the number of cycles N at various axial strain amplitude εa in
drained SSCCTX tests and test data taken from Martin et al. (1975) for Crystal Silica No. 20 sands with Dr ¼ 45%.
10 (C1 , C2 , and C3 ) of the cyclic shear-volume coupling model for

Dr = 45% Nanjing fine sand with various Dr are given in Table 5.
As shown previously, the value of C1 C2 equals 0.4 in Eq. (4)
8 and 0.15 in the proposed Eq. (6). This difference demonstrates
a behavior difference between Crystal Silica No. 20 sand and
Nanjing fine sand. The constant B2 controls the downward-bending
6
curve shape of the change of εvd with N. The predicted shape is
vd /
shown in Fig. 13(b) and is in good agreement with the test data
of Martin et al. (1975) and Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). Since
4
the shape is almost the same for Nanjing fine sand of various Dr ,
the constant C2 is a constant fraction of C1 for various Dr ∶C2 ¼
Crystal Silica No. 20 sand 0.15=C1 . Thus, using the data in Table 5, the correlation between
2 (Martin et al. 1975)
Dr and C1 for Nanjing fine sand can be described using a negative
Nanjing fine sand
power function curve fit as follows [Fig. (14)]:
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 C1 ¼ 7.05ðDr Þ−0.5 ð14Þ
Number of cycles, N
where Dr is expressed in percentage form.
Fig. 12. Comparison on the variations of strain ratio εvd =γ versus num-
Fig. 15 shows the relationship between Δεvd =γ versus εvd =γ
ber of cycles N at various shear strain amplitude γ in drained SSCCTX
for Nanjing fine sand from the data of Fig. (11), the predicted
tests and recompiled data from the test results of Martin et al. (1975) for
curves of Eq. (6) using the previous four constants, and a com-
Crystal Silica No. 20 sands with Dr ¼ 45%.
parison with the predicted results based on Eq. (4) for Crystal
1.5 3.5
(%)
Dr CD C3 Martin et al. (1975) data, Dr = 45%

35% 9.02 15 cycles
vd)15
3.0 Envelope of test data (Tokimatsu and Seed 1987)

1.2 45% 8.15
1.25
Volumetric strain in 15 cycles, (
60% 7.14 2.5 (ε vd) N / (εvd)15 = 0.86 ln(0.15N + 0.96)

70% 6.30
vd )15
0.9 R 2 = 0.973
2.0
(
vd)N /
1.5 Dr (%) Dr (%)

0.6
0.08 0.08
(
1.0 35% 0.15 60% 0.15

0.23 0.23
0.3 0.08 0.08
th = 0.02% 0.5
45% 0.15 70% 0.15
0.23 0.23
0.0 0.0
0.01 0.1 1 0 20 40 60 80 100
(a) Shear strain amplitude, (%) (b) Number of cycles, N
Fig. 13. Volumetric strain from the drained SSCCTX tests: (a) ðεvd Þ15 versus γ; and (b) ðεvd ÞN=ðεvd Þ15 versus N.

Table 5. Coefficients of the proposed excess pore pressure model in this paper for different types of sands and tests
Model
Incremental shear-volume coupling [Eqs. (15)
Relative Saturated Small strain
equation [Eq. (6)] and (16)]
density, density, shear modulus,
Sand Dr (%) ρ (g=cm3 ) G0 (MPa) C1 C2 C3 γ th (%) m n
Nanjing fine sand 35 1.81 48 1.164 0.129 1.25 0.02 0.345 6.689
45 1.83 53 1.051 0.143
50 1.84 54 0.997 0.150
60 1.86 58 0.921 0.163
70 1.88 63 0.813 0.185
Banding sand (Dobry et al. 1985) 40 — — 0.278 0.603 0.70 0.017 0.446 25.185
Crystal Silica No. 20 sand (Martin et al. 1975) — — — 0.773 0.546 0.89 0.02a 0.484 22.442
Ottawa silica sand (Ishibashi et al. 1985) 40 — — 0.486 0.329 0.75 0.02a 0.502 4.059
Monterey sand (Lee and Albaisa 1974) 30, 50 — — — — — — 0.420 12.193
75, 85 — — — — — — 0.420 17.005

a
γ th estimated for Crystal Silica No. 20 sand from Silver and Seed (1971b), and that for Ottawa Silica sand from Youd (1972).
1.5 During a drained CTX test for saturated sand, a cycle of εa

causes an increment in the volumetric compaction strain (Δεvd )
owing to a grain slip, and a change Δεvf in volumetric strain. From
C1= 7.05 (Dr ) -0.50 the discharged pore water that corresponds to a change in the void
1.2
R2 = 0.982
volume, Δεvd is assumed to be equal to Δεvf . During an undrained
CTX test for the same saturated sands and with the same εa as that
Coefficient, C1
applied in the drained CTX test, this εa causes an increase in the

0.9 residual excess pore pressure Δue . As Δue increases, the corre-
sponding reduction in the effective stress causes a dilatation of
an increment of recoverable volumetric strain (Δεvr ). Indeed, this
increase of Δue cannot cause a change in volumetric strain because
0.6
of the lack of discharge pore water, which means that the value of
Δεvr is equal to the value of Δεvf . The bulk modulus (kw ) of water
is much larger than the Er of sand skeleton, implying that the water
0.3 is assumed to be incompressible, whereby Δue ¼ Er Δεvr. The val-
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
ues of Er and Δεvr in undrained CTX tests cannot be measured.
Relative density, Dr (%)
However, the values of Δεvd in drained CTX tests are independent
Fig. 14. Relationship between relative density Dr and coefficient C1 . of the initial effective confining stress and are only a function of the
cycle number of the applied axial strain amplitudes. Thus, given the
incompressibility of water, the value of Δεvd in drained CTX test
should be equal to the value of Δεvr in undrained CTX test applied
Silica No. 20 sand (Dr ¼ 45%). The plot of Δεvd =γ versus the same εa (Martin et al. 1975). The variations of ru versus N for
εvd =γ predicted by Eq. (4) markedly falls below the curve gen- saturated Nanjing fine sand at various Dr and εa in undrained
erated from the measured data of the drained SSCCTX tests for SSCCTX tests are plotted in Fig. 16(a). Note that the values of
Nanjing fine sand. ru approach 1.0 only under the strain-controlled cyclic loading test
1.2 1.2
Nanjing fine sand Crystal Silica No.20 sand, Dr = 45%
1.0 Dr = 35% 60% 1.0 (Byrne 1991)
= 0.08%
= 0.15%
0.8 = 0.23% 0.8 Nanjing fine sand
*
*
Dr = 45% 70%
vd /
vd /
0.6 0.6 = 0.08%

= 0.15%
Δ
Δ
= 0.23%
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
* *
(a) vd / (b) vd /
Fig. 15. Normalized incremental volumetric strain (Δεvd =γ ) versus accumulated volumetric strains (εvd =γ ) in drained SSCCTX tests and the
predicted results by Byrne (1991) Eq. (4) in terms of the test results of Martin et al. (1975).

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8
R2 = 0.982
0.6 0.6 ru 0.345ln 6.689 vd 1
0.4 0.4
Dr a Dr a Dr a Dr a
0.05% 35% 0.10% 0.05% 35% 0.10%
0.2 45% 0.10% 60% 0.10% 0.2 45% 0.10% 60% 0.10%
0.15% 70% 0.10% 0.15% 70% 0.10%
0.0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
(a) Number of cycles, N (b) Volumetric strain, vd (%)
Fig. 16. (a) Relationship between the excess pore pressure ratio ru obtained from undrained SSCCTX tests and the number of cycles N; and
(b) relationship between the accumulated volumetric strain εvd obtained from drained SSCCTX tests and the excess pore pressure ratio ru from
undrained SSCCTX tests.
conditions for Dr ¼ 35% and εa ¼ 0.10% at the 150th cycle, or shape of the change of ru with εvd . In addition, the influence of
Dr ¼ 45% and εa ¼ 0.15% at the 200th cycle; other specimens Dr on the relationship between ru and εvd in parallel drained
were not liquefied even at the 250th cycle. Indeed, it would require and undrained SSCCTX tests for Nanjing fine sand is insensitive
an exponential increase of loading cycles to liquefy the soil. Never- [Fig. 16(b)].
theless, the values of the volumetric strain (Fig. 11) and the excess By differentiating Eq. (15) with respect to εvd , the following
pore-water pressure [Fig. 16(a)] only slightly increased or were al- equation for Er is obtained:
most stabilized as the number of cycles approaches 250. In simple 0
terms, volume changes in drained conditions and excess pore-water Er ¼ 100mnσc0 expð−ru =mÞ ð16Þ
pressure rise in undrained conditions are closely related during 0 0
cyclic shear loading. A virtually unique correlation between ru and where σc0 = initial effective confining stress; and Er and σc0 are in
εvd can be established for various Dr and εa for the studied sand, kilopascals.
thereby allowing the establishment of the corresponding physical
mechanism. Combining a pair of data points (εa , εvd ) from a
Validation of Model Applicability
drained SSCCTX test and (εa , ru ) from a counterpart undrained
SSCCTX test allows the establishment of a relationship between To validate the proposed model, the data not included in the model
ru in undrained SSCCTX tests and εvd in drained SSCCTX tests, development, including the undrained and drained SSCCTX veri-
as shown in Fig. 16(b). The best-fitting equation for the data of fication tests conducted in this study (Table 4) and the undrained
ru and εvd is represented by stress-controlled CTX test by Wang et al. (2010), are used. Fig. 17
compares the measured data with the predictions by the proposed
ru ¼ m lnðnεvd þ 1Þ ð15Þ model. In Fig. 17, the time histories of ru predicted by the proposed
model agree well with the measured data from the two verification
where εvd is in percent. The constants m and n of the proposed tests and the results of the undrained stress-controlled CTX test
excess pore-water pressure model in Eq. (15) from the drained by Wang et al. (2010). This indicates a good predictive capacity
and undrained SSCCTX test data for Nanjing fine sand are given of the proposed model in various cyclic tests with different loading
in Table 5. The constant n controls the downward-bending curve patterns (strain or stress controlled). However, it is interesting to
Data from Wang et al. (2010)

1.0 1.0
Updated Martin’s model

Model proposed in this paper
0.8 0.8
Dr = 30% f = 1 Hz
0.6 0.6 c0 = 100 kPa
6
Axial strain (%)
3
0.4 0.4 0
Dr = 50% Updated Martin’s model -3
0.2 c0 = 100 kPa Model proposed in this paper 0.2 -6
= 0.33% f = 1 Hz Undrained SSCCTX test result 0 4 8 12 16 20
Time (s)
0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 4 8 12 16 20
(a) Time (s) (b) Time (s)
Fig. 17. Comparison of the predicted and the measured excess pore pressure ratio response of saturated Nanjing fine sand under undrained CTX tests:
(a) undrained SSCCTX test; and (b) undrained stress-controlled CTX test. (Data from Wang et al. 2010.)

3.6
Legend:
(a) Crystal Silica No. 20 sand (Martin et al. 1975)
3.0 Dr = 45%, CDSS test
vd (%)
Measured
2.4 vd predicted by Eq. (6)
Nanjing fine sand (in this study)
Volumetric strain,
1.8 Dr = 50%, Drained SSCCTX test

Measured vd predicted by Eq. (6)
1.2 (b) Ottawa Silica sand (Ishibashi et al. 1985)

Measured
0.6 r u predicted by Eq. (6)
(c) Banding sand (Dobry et al. 1985)
0.0 Measured
0 10 20 30 40 50
r u predicted by Eq. (6)
(a) Number of cycles, N
1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 10 20 30
(b) Number of cycles, N (c) Number of cycles, N
Fig. 18. Verification and validation of the proposed model [Eq. (6) combined with Eq. (16)] for test data: (a) Nanjing fine sand (in this study) and
Crystal Silica No. 20 sand (Martin et al. 1975); (b) Ottawa sand (Ishibashi et al. 1985); and (c) Banding sand (Dobry et al. 1985).
note in Fig. 17 that the generation patterns of ru significantly sand [first, measured residual ue in an undrained CTX test, then
deviate from the predicted results based on the updated Martin dissipated residual ue , measured volume of discharge pore water,
model, indicating a larger discrepancy with the updated Martin and converted to volumetric strain (Lee and Albaisa 1974)], Crystal
model. Silica No. 20 sand [based on the data of static one-dimensional
0
The proposed excess pore-water pressure model in Eqs. (6) and drained unloading tests, the curves of εvr versus σv0 were converted
(15) are characterized, respectively, by cyclic shear-volume cou- into the curves of εvd versus ru (Martin et al. 1975)], Ottawa silica
pling and by a function of accumulated volumetric strain. As shown sand [parallel strain-controlled undrained and drained CTSS
in Fig. 18, independent confirmations for the proposed model tests (Ishibashi et al. 1985)], and Banding sand [based on the data
0
[Eq. (6) combined with Eq. (16)] are provided by the original ex- of drained unloading SDSS tests, the curves of εvr versus σv0
perimental data of Martin et al.’s (1975) strain-controlled drained were converted into the curves of εvd versus ru (Dobry et al.
CDSS tests on Crystal Silica No. 20 sand, Ishibashi et al.’s (1985) 1985)]. The fitting constants m and n of the proposed model,
strain-controlled drained cyclic torsional simple shear (CTSS) tests Eq. (15), for the four types of sands in the literature are also
on Ottawa silica sand, and Dobry et al.’s (1985) strain-controlled given in Table 5. As seen in Fig. 19, the proposed model can
undrained CDSS tests combined with drained unloading static di- be successfully applied to simulate the correlation between the
rect simple shear (SDSS) tests on Banding sand. The fitting con- undrained ru and the drained εvd for various types of sands and
stants C1 , C2 , and C3 of the proposed model [Eq. (6)] for these tests. This implies that the residual excess pore pressure genera-
three types of sands in the existing literature are given in Table 5. tion and volumetric strain histories are uniquely correlated. The
It can be observed that the proposed model can be successfully ap- comparison in Fig. 19 independently confirms the validity and
plied to simulate the volumetric strain increases and the residual robustness of Eq. (15) for different types of sands and tests.
excess pore pressure buildup of the different types of sands. This Furthermore, it is also observed in Fig. 19 that the influence of
exemplifies that the pattern of the progressively increasing excess small changes in Dr on the correlation between ru and εvd in
pore pressure theoretically predicted by the proposed model coin- counterpart undrained and drained conditions is negligible for
cides excellently with the nature of excess pore pressure buildup the specific sand.
observed experimentally. A conclusion could be drawn that the proposed model in Eqs. (6)
There is little laboratory test data related to the relationship and (15) can be simultaneously or separately used for analytical
between cyclic volume changes in drained conditions and resid- modeling of residual pore-water pressure generation; this is of
ual excess pore pressure generation in counterpart undrained considerable benefit in improving the physical understanding of
conditions in the literature. To achieve a calibration between the existing computational methods for evaluating soil liquefaction
experimental findings and the semiempirical model [Eq. (15)], triggered by ocean waves and earthquakes. Therefore, the general
Fig. 19 presents the original experimental data for Monterey applicability of the proposed model is validated.

Monterey sand Legend:
1.0 Ottawa Silica sand Banding sand (Dobry et al. 1985)
Excess pore water pressure ratio, ru

Dr = 45%, Drained unloading SDSS test
Predicted by Eq. (15)
0.8 Nanjing fine sand Crystal Silica No. 20 sand (Martin et al. 1975)
Dr = 45%,
1.0 Crystal Silica No. 20 sand Static one-dimensional drained unloading test
0.6 Predicted by Eq. (15)
0.8
Monterey sand (Lee and Albaisa 1974)
Banding sand Dr = 30% Dr = 75%
0.6
0.4 Dr = 85% CTX test
ru
Dr = 50%
0.4 Predicted by Eq. (15) Predicted by Eq. (15)
0.2 Ottawa Silica sand (Ishibashi et al. 1985)

0.2 Dr = 40% CTSS test
0.0 Predicted by Eq. (15)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
vd (%) Nanjing fine sand (in this study)
0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 Dr = 50%, SSCCTX test
Predicted by Eq. (15)
Volumetric strain, vd (%)
Fig. 19. Verification and validation of the proposed model Eq. (15) for test data: Nanjing fine sand (in this study), Monterey sand (Lee and Albaisa
1974), Crystal Silica No. 20 sand (Martin et al. 1975), Ottawa sand (Ishibashi et al. 1985), and Banding sand (Dobry et al. 1985).
Summary and Further Discussions understanding of the excess pore-water pressure buildup. It is an
effective way to argue that cyclic shear strains, in lieu of stresses,
To further facilitate the use of the proposed excess pore-water pres- should be used to evaluate the residual excess pore-water pressures
sure model [Eqs. (6) and (15)], the procedures for the determination and the consequent softening of fully saturated sandy soils. To fur-
of the six constant coefficients γ th , C1 , C2 , C3 , m, and n are sum- ther clarify the practical advantage of the proposed model, the re-
marized as follows: sults are compared with the existing residual excess pore-water
1. For CTX tests, the v for converting the applied εa into the γ is a pressure models in cyclic testing of fully saturated soil.
necessary parameter. At low strain levels (less than 0.01%), de- The residual excess pore-water pressure generation model pro-
termine vu (or vd ) using Eu (or Ed ) measured from an undrained posed here starts from the same effective stress consideration used
(or drained) MSCCTX test combined with G measured from an previously by Martin et al. (1975) and Byrne (1991). However, the
RC test; at higher strain levels (larger than 0.01%), determine vd two models differ by a key assumption, as exemplified by Eqs. (1)
using the radial and axial strains measured from a drained and (15), and this difference has far-reaching consequences. Since
MSCCTX test and vu using G and Eu measured from undrained the proposed model, Eq. (15), which is based on the results of par-
cyclic axial-torsional combined loading tests.
allel undrained and drained SSCCTX tests, is independent of the
2. Determine γ th using the curve of ru (undrained) or εvd (drained)
number of loading cycles, the residual excess pore-water pressure is
versus γ obtained from a MSCCTX test [Fig. 10(a)].
assumed only as a function of the εvd . In addition, the correlation
3. Based on the test results of ðεvd ÞN versus N obtained from
equation between the undrained Δue and the drained Δεvd is linked
drained SSCCTX tests at various εa and Dr , coefficients C1 ,
with Er , which is obtained by differentiating Eq. (15) with respect
C2 , and C3 can be determined. Coefficients C3 and CD are de-
to variable εvd , and simplified the Martin et al. (1975) method for
termined according to the curves of ðεvd Þ15 versus γ [Fig. 13(a)];
determining the elastic rebound modulus, where the physical mean-
and B1 , B2 , and B3 are determined according to the correlation
between ðεvd ÞN =ðεvd Þ15 and N [Fig. 13(b)] from drained ing of Er in Eq. (16) is bulk modulus. The proposed Eq. (16) is
SSCCTX tests at various Dr ; thus, C1 ¼ B1 B2 CD and C2 ¼ applicable to various types of tests and sands (Figs. 18 and 19).
B2 =C1 . Furthermore, the correlation between C1 and Dr can In addition, incorporating a clear physical-based parameter γ th from
be determined. the observed experimental phenomenon, the proposed model,
4. Based on the pair of data points (εa , εvd ) from a drained Eq. (6), offers an improvement over Eq. (4) by Byrne (1991). Thus,
SSCCTX test with the pair of data points (εa , ru ) from its coun- the main advantage of the model proposed here [Eqs. (6) and (15)]
terpart undrained SSCCTX test, the coefficients m and n can be can be simultaneously or separately used for analytical modeling of
determined according to the correlation between ru and εvd the residual excess pore water pressure generation. The proposed
[Fig. 16(b)]. model [Eqs. (6) and (15)] provides new insights into the physical
In the absence of test data, γ th ¼ 0.02% can be used as a prac- mechanics of residual excess pore-water pressure buildup.
tical threshold shear strain, since the value of γ th is 0.01%–0.03% The proposed model and the model by Dobry et al. (1985) are
for most sands. Next, the coefficients C1 , C2 , and C3 in Eq. (6) can also different. The primary factors controlling the generation of
be determined by fitting the curves of εvd versus N obtained from residual excess pore-water pressure in the Dobry et al. (1985)
different types of tests (e.g., undrained strain-controlled CDSS tests model are identified as the amplitude of the cyclic shear strain,
combined with drained unloading SDSS test and drained strain- the number of cycles, and the magnitude of the volumetric thresh-
controlled CDSS, CTSS, or CTX tests). Similarly, the coefficients old shear strain. The Dobry et al. (1985) model was established
m and n in Eq. (15) can be determined by fitting the curves of ru assuming a constant volumetric strain tendency per cycle at a con-
versus εvd obtained from different types of tests (e.g., drained un- stant shear strain. In reality, the observed experimental phenome-
loading SDSS test, static one-dimensional drained unloading test, non in this paper shows that the accumulated volumetric strain,
and parallel strain-controlled drained and undrained CTSS or having a nonconstant volumetric strain incremental tendency per
CTX tests). cycle at a constant shear strain (Fig. 15), is plastic strain in nature,
The proposed excess pore-water pressure model [Eqs. (6) and mainly a consequence of the cyclic shear strain induced by the
(15)] is quite general, which provides a basis for improving the cyclic loading. Thus, the difference in mechanism of the residual

excess pore-water pressure generation between the proposed model the ru (undrained) or the εvd (drained) criterion. The value γ th ¼
[Eq. (6) combined with Eq. (16)] and that by Dobry et al. (1985) is 0.02% is appropriate as a practical value for most sands.
quite obvious and significant. 2. A new cyclic shear-volume coupling [Eq. (6)] considering
In this context, the well-calibrated semiempirical shear-volume the clear physical-based parameter γ th is proposed, and its gen-
coupling [Eq. (6)] links the increment of volumetric strain per cycle eral applicability is validated using the experiment data of the
of cyclic loading with the amplitude of shear strain for the cycle in verification for the same sand and Crystal Silica No. 20 sand,
question. The proposed model [Eq. (6)] can be used to evaluate the Ottawa sand, and Banding sand from the existing literature. The
plastic volumetric strain (compaction), which is the major control- coefficients C1 , C2 , and C3 for Eq. (6) could be easily calibrated
ling factor of the residual pore-water pressure accumulation. The in the εvd and N curves from different types of tests. This pro-
physical meanings of the plastic volumetric strain [Eq. (6)] and posed model [Eq. (6)] is an improvement over Byrne’s (1991)
the bulk modulus [Eq. (16)] coincide with those in the plasticity model [Eq. (4)].
theory–based models, which provides a means for combining 3. By combining a pair of data points (εa , ru ) from undrained
the theory with the experimental observation. In addition, the pro- SSCCTX tests with a pair of data points (εa , εvd ) from parallel
posed model with a small number of parameters can be calibrated drained SSCCTX tests, a semiempirical correlation [Eq. (15)]
directly from laboratory tests, allowing a reasonable transition from between the residual ru and the εvd is proposed. Simultaneously,
theory to experimental observation. To this end, the cyclic shear- a simple bulk modulus [Eq. (16)] is also obtained by differen-
volume coupling pore-water pressure model [Eq. (6) combined tiating Eq. (15). The coefficients m and n for Eq. (15) could be
with Eq. (16)] can be easily incorporated into an explicit time easily determined using the ru and εvd curves from different
matching finite-difference dynamic analysis procedure. In addition, types of tests. This correlation [Eq. (15)] is validated through
to apply the Dobry et al. (1985) model for predicting the magni- the data from various types of sands and tests in the literature.
tude of residual excess pore-water pressure buildup in fully satu-
rated sands, it is necessary to convert an irregular earthquake
motion to the equivalent uniform shear stress or strain cycles. The Acknowledgments
proposed correlation [Eq. (15)] can bypass such conversion pro-
cedure with a single variable (accumulated volumetric strain) This work was supported by the National Key Research
and is applicable to various types of cyclic tests and irregular stress and Development Program of China (2018YFC1504301 and
or strain cycles. 2017YFC1500403) and the Natural Science Foundation of China
Finally, it should be noted that all of the new tests reported in (51438004). This financial support is gratefully acknowledged.
this paper were conducted at an initial effective confining stress of
100 kPa. Thus, the applicability domain of the proposed model for
different levels of confining stress should be further investigated. References
Nevertheless, indirect evidences are available to suggest that the ASTM. 2004. Standard test method for load controlled cyclic triaxial
proposed model is mainly dependent on the type and density of strength of soil. ASTM D5311-92. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
sand and the applied strain level; thus, it should be valid for the ASTM. 2007. Standard test methods for modulus and damping of soils by
typical range of the confining stress that affect soil liquefaction. the resonant column method. ASTM D4015. West Conshohocken, PA:
For example, Martin et al. (1975) found that the volumetric strain ASTM.
due to slip at grain contacts under drained condition was indepen- ASTM. 2013. Standard test methods for the determination of the modulus
dent of vertical stress and was primarily a function of the shear and damping properties of soils using the cyclic triaxial apparatus.
strain amplitude. Lee and Albaisa (1974) showed that the relation- ASTM D3999/D3999M. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Baziar, M. H., H. Shahnazari, and H. Sharafi. 2011. “A laboratory study on
ship between the excess pore-water pressure ratio under undrained
the pore pressure generation model for Firouzkooh silty sands using
condition and the accumulated volumetric strain under drained con- hollow torsional test.” Int. J. Civ. Eng. 9 (2): 126–134.
dition was slightly affected by initial effective confining pressure Booker, J. R., M. S. Rahman, and H. B. Seed. 1976. GADFLEA: A com-
ranging from 103 to 207 kPa. Similarly, Dobry et al. (1985) found puter program for the analysis of pore pressure generation and dissi-
that such relationship was almost uninfluenced by the initial effec- pation during cyclic or earthquake loading. Rep. No. EERC-76-24.
tive vertical pressure ranging from 38 to 172 kPa. Furthermore, the Berkeley, CA: California Univ.
applicability of the proposed model is also validated by the pub- Byrne, P. M. 1991. “A cyclic shear-volume coupling and pore pressure
lished data for different confining pressures in the four independent model for sand.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in
studies (Lee and Albaisa 1974; Martin et al. 1975; Dobry et al. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 47–55.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
1985; Ishibashi et al. 1985).
Cetin, K. O., and H. T. Bilge. 2011. “Cyclic large strain and induced pore
pressure models for saturated clean sands.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 138 (3): 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
Conclusions .0000631.
Chen, G. X., Z. L. Zhou, H. Pan, T. Sun, and X. J. Li. 2016. “The influence
One resonant column test and a series of drained and undrained of undrained cyclic loading patterns and consolidation states on the
strain-controlled CTX tests were conducted for saturated Nanjing deformation features of saturated fine sand over a wide strain range.”
fine sand. A simple but workable model is proposed for analytical Eng. Geol. 204: 77–93. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.02.008.
modeling of residual excess pore-water pressure generation under Chen, G. X., Z. L. Zhou, T. Sun, Q. Wu, L. Y. Xu, S. Khoshnevisan, and
cyclic loadings. The conclusions drawn from these experimental D. S. Ling. 2018. “Shear modulus and damping ratio of sand-gravel
mixtures over a wide strain range.” J. Earthquake Eng. 1–34. https://doi
data are summarized as follows:
.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1387200.
1. For the testing conditions described previously, the undrained Chung, R. M., F. Y. Yokel, and H. Wechsler. 1984. “Pore pressure buildup
and drained dynamic Poisson’s ratios over a wide strain range in resonant column tests.” J. Geotech. Eng. 110 (2): 247–261. https://
are determined; the threshold shear strain γ th below which ex- doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1984)110:2(247).
cess pore-water pressure does not develop is a constant for spe- Clayton, C. R. I. 2011. “Stiffness at small strain: research and practice.”
cific sand in a wide range of Dr , and γ th can be obtained using Geotechnique 61 (1): 5–37. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2011.61.1.5.

Dobry, R., and T. Abdoun. 2017. “Recent findings on liquefaction trigger- Matasovic, N., and G. A. Ordóñez. 2010. D-MOD2000: A computer pro-
ing in clean and silty sands during earthquakes.” J. Geotech. Geoen- gram for seismic response analysis of horizontally layered soil deposits,
viron. Eng. 143 (10): 04017077. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT earthfill dams, and solid waste landfills (user’s manual). Lacey, WA:
.1943-5606.0001778. GeoMotions, LLC.
Dobry, R., R. S. Ladd, F. Y. Yokel, R. M. Chung, and D. Powell. 1982. Matasovic, N., and M. Vucetic. 1993. Seismic response of composite
Prediction of pore water pressure buildup and liquefaction of sands horizontally-layered soil deposits. UCLA Research Rep. No. ENG-
during earthquakes by the cyclic strain method: Building science series. 93-182. Los Angeles: Civil Engineering Dept., Univ. of California.
Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards, US Dept. of Menq, F. Y. 2003. “Dynamic properties of sandy and gravelly soils.”
Commerce. Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Austin.
Dobry, R., W. G. Pierce, R. Dyvik, G. E. Thomas, and R. S. Ladd. 1985.
NRC (National Research Council). 1985. Liquefaction of soils during
Pore pressure model for cyclic straining of sand. Research Rep. Troy,
earthquakes: Committee on earthquake engineering, commission on
NY: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
engineering and technical systems. Washington, DC: National
Duku, P. M., J. P. Stewart, D. H. Whang, and E. Yee. 2008. “Volumetric
Academy Press.
strains of clean sands subject to cyclic loads.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 134 (8): 1073–1085. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241 Park, T., D. Park, and J. K. Ahn. 2015. “Pore pressure model based on
accumulated stress.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 13 (7): 1913–1926.
(2008)134:8(1073).
Dutta, T. T., and T. Saride. 2016. “Influence of shear strain on the Poisson’s https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9702-1.
ratio of clean sands.” Geotech. Geol. Eng. 34 (5): 1359–1373. https:// Porcino, D. D., and V. Diano. 2017. “The influence of non-plastic fines on
doi.org/10.1007/s10706-016-0047-1. pore water pressure generation and undrained shear strength of sand-silt
Dyvik, R., R. Dobry, G. E. Thomas, and W. G. Pierce. 1984. Influence mixtures.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 101: 311–321. https://doi.org/10
of consolidation shear stresses and relative density on threshold .1016/j.soildyn.2017.07.015.
strain and pore pressure during cyclic straining of saturated sands. Sandoval, E. A., and M. A. Pando. 2012. “Experimental assessment of the
Miscellaneous Paper GL-84-15. Washington, DC: Dept. of the Army, liquefaction resistance of calcareous biogenous sands.” Earth Sci.
USACE. Res. J. 16 (1): 55–63.
Hashash, Y. M. A. 2012. DeepSoil V5.1, user manual and tutorial 2002– Seed, H. B. 1968. “Landslides during earthquakes due to liquefaction.”
2012. Urbana, IL: Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 94 (5): 1053–1122.
of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Seed, H. B., P. P. Martin, and J. Lysmer. 1975. The generation and
Hazirbaba, K., and E. M. Rathje. 2009. “Pore pressure generation of silty dissipation of pore water pressures during soil liquefaction. Berkeley,
sands due to induced cyclic shear strains.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. CA: Univ. of California.
135 (12): 1892–1905. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606 Seed, H. B., R. T. Wong, I. M. Idriss, and K. Tokimatsu. 1986. “Moduli and
.0000147. damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils.” J. Geo-
Hyodo, M., H. Murata, N. Yasufuku, and T. Fujii. 1991. “Undrained cyclic tech. Eng. 112 (11): 1016–1032. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
shear strength and residual shear strain of saturated sand by cyclic
-9410(1986)112:11(1016).
triaxial tests.” Soils Found. 31 (3): 60–76. https://doi.org/10.3208
Silver, M. L., and H. B. Seed. 1971a. “Deformation characteristics of sands
/sandf1972.31.3_60.
under cyclic loading.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 97 (8): 1081–1098.
Ishibashi, I., M. Kawamura, and S. K. Bhatia. 1985. “Effect of initial shear
on cyclic behavior of sand.” J. Geotech. Eng. 135 (12): 1892–1905. Silver, M. L., and H. B. Seed. 1971b. “Volume changes in sands during
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:12(1395). cyclic loading.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 97 (9): 1171–1182.
Ishihara, K. 1996. Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechnics. New York: Skempton, A. W. 1954. “The pore-pressure coefficients AB.” Geotechnique
Oxford University Press. 4 (4): 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1954.4.4.143.
Kim, D. S., and Y. W. Choo. 2006. “Cyclic threshold shear strains of sands Tokimatsu, K., and K. Katsumata. 2012. “Liquefaction-induced damage to
based on pore water pressure buildup and variation of deformation buildings in Urayasu City during the 2011 Tohoku Pacific earthquake.”
characteristics.” Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng. 16 (1): 57–64. In Proc., Int. Symp. on Engineering Lessons Learned from the 2011
Kokusho, T. 1980. “Cyclic triaxial test of dynamic soil properties for wide Great East Japan Earthquake, 665–674. Tokyo: Japan Association
strain range.” Soils Found. 20 (2): 45–60. https://doi.org/10.3208 for Earthquake Engineering.
/sandf1972.20.2_45. Tokimatsu, K., and H. B. Seed. 1987. “Evaluation of settlements in sands
Ladd, R. S., R. Dobry, P. Dutko, F. Y. Yokel, and R. M. Chung. 1989. due to earthquake shaking.” J. Geotech. Eng. 113 (8): 861–878. https://
“Porewater pressure buildup in clean sands because of cyclic straining.” doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)113:8(861).
Geotech. Test. J. 12 (1): 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10677J. Vucetic, M., and R. Dobry. 1986. Pore pressure build-up and liquefaction
Lambe, T. W., and R. V. Whitman. 1979. Soil mechanics. New York: Wiley. at level sandy sites during earthquakes. Research Rep. Troy, NY:
LaVielle, T. H. 2008. “Liquefaction susceptibility of uncemented calcare- Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
ous sands from Puerto Rico by cyclic triaxial testing.” M.Sc. disserta- Vucetic, M., and A. Mortezaie. 2015. “Cyclic secant shear modulus versus
tion, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State pore water pressure in sands at small cyclic strains.” Soil Dyn. Earth-
Univ. quake Eng. 70: 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.12.001.
Lee, K. L., and A. Albaisa. 1974. “Earthquake induced settlements in
Wang, B. H., G. X. Chen, and D. D. Jin. 2010. “Pore water pressure incre-
saturated sands.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 100 (4): 387–406.
ment model for saturated Nanjing fin sand subject to cyclic loading.”
Lee, M. K. W., and W. D. L. Finn. 1978. DESRA-2: Dynamic effective
Earthquake Eng. Eng. Vibr. 9 (4): 569–576. https://doi.org/10.1007
stress response analysis of soil deposits with energy transmitting
boundary including assessment of liquefaction potential. Research /s11803-010-0038-9.
Rep. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Univ. of British Columbia. Wu, Q., G. X. Chen, Y. M. Zhu, Z. L. Zhou, and Y. G. Zhou. 2018. “Evalu-
Lee, S. H., Y. W. Choo, and D. S. Kim. 2010. “Influence of imperfect ating liquefaction resistance of saturated sandy soils based on equiva-
saturation on deformation characteristics and pore water pressure lent skeleton void ratio.” [In Chinese.] Chin. J. Geotech. Eng. 40 (10):
buildup under cyclic loading for sand.” Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng. 1912–1922. https://doi.org/10.11779/CJGE201810019.
20 (2): 132–139. Youd, T. L. 1972. “Compaction of sands by repeated shear straining.”
Martin, G. R., W. D. L. Finn, and H. B. Seed. 1975. “Fundamentals of J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 98 (7): 709–725.
liquefaction under cyclic loading.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 101 (5): Zhou, J. 1999. “Some cases in geotechnical engineering.” [In Chinese.]
423–438. Chin. J. Geotech. Eng. 21 (1): 2–8.

Chen-2019-Excess Pore-Water Pressure Generation in Cyclic Undrained Testing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chen-2019-Excess Pore-Water Pressure Generation in Cyclic Undrained Testing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Excess Pore-Water Pressure Generation in

Cyclic Undrained Testing

Introduction most susceptible to earthquake-induced liquefaction, and the gen-

© ASCE 04019022-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019022

Cyclic stress ratio, CSR

© ASCE 04019022-2 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019022

Finer by weight (%)

20 Crystal Silica No. 20 sand

© ASCE 04019022-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019022

Dobry et al. (1985) Strain-controlled undrained CDSS, Banding sand = 0.017–0.045

© ASCE 04019022-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019022

dynamically controlled independently, and the variable volume

Specimen Preparation, Saturation, and Test Program

SCON-2000 (signal conditioning and

© ASCE 04019022-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019022

Cell/back pressure 1.0 MPa ≤0.1% FS 0.1 kPa

Excess pore pressure ratio, ru

© ASCE 04019022-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019022

Excess pore pressure ratio, ru

© ASCE 04019022-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019022

-0.002 Drainage process -0.04 Drainage process -0.5 Drainage process

-0.004 -0.08 -1.0

Excess pore pressure u (kPa)

Excess pore pressure u (kPa)

reconsolidation 20 Isotropic 50 reconsolidation

Shear strain amplitude

Fig. 7. Results of RC test for Dr ¼ 45% and γ ¼ 0.001%.

© ASCE 04019022-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019022

Axial strain, a (%)

(b) Axial strain, a (%)

© ASCE 04019022-9 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019022

D r = 60% (Drained SSCCTX test)

th = 0.023% 1.0 Dr = 20 – 80 (%)

0.8 10 cycles, Dr = 45% 2 0.8 undrained MSCCTX test

© ASCE 04019022-10 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019022

0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250

10 (C1 , C2 , and C3 ) of the cyclic shear-volume coupling model for

Dr CD C3 Martin et al. (1975) data, Dr = 45%

3.0 Envelope of test data (Tokimatsu and Seed 1987)

60% 7.14 2.5 (ε vd) N / (εvd)15 = 0.86 ln(0.15N + 0.96)

1.5 Dr (%) Dr (%)

1.0 35% 0.15 60% 0.15

© ASCE 04019022-11 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019022

75, 85 — — — — — — 0.420 17.005

1.5 During a drained CTX test for saturated sand, a cycle of εa

applied in the drained CTX test, this εa causes an increase in the

0.6 0.6 = 0.08%

© ASCE 04019022-12 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(7): 04019022

Excess pore pressure ratio, ru

Excess pore pressure ratio, ru

(a) Number of cycles, N (b) Volumetric strain, vd (%)

Data from Wang et al. (2010)