You are on page 1of 45

PLAXIS

LIQUEFACTION MODEL
Appropriation Elaboration Implementation Verification
1.5

1

0.5

0 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

-0.5

-1

Report No. 1 By Anteneh Biru Tsegaye (MSc.)
Feb. 2010

LIQUEFACTION MODEL (UBC3D)

Report

Anteneh Biru Tsegaye

Plaxis B.V. 2010 Delft, The Netherlands

Declaration

This research has been done at Plaxis B.V. from Oct. 2009-Feb. 2010. The name UBC2D is used for the UBC sand model before this implementation (Formulated and implemented in FLAC by Byrne, et al). In this research, the various elastoplastic functions used by the UBC2D model are used. Where necessary, changes are made to a few of the functions. The current implementation (in Plaxis) is fully implicit 3D implementation. A distinction is made by calling the current model as UBC3D (or sometimes Plaxis Liquefaction model-PLM) in the different parts of the document. These names are introduced solely for differentiation. Ir. Anteneh Biru Tsegaye Feb 2010 Delft, The Netherlands

Table of Contents Page No.

1. Development of a Liquefaction Model ......................................................................1 1.1 Basic elastoplastic functions ................................................................................2 1.1.1 Yield function ...............................................................................................2 1.1.2 Plastic Hardening ..........................................................................................5 1.1.3 Plastic Potential function ..............................................................................6 1.1.4 Flow rule .......................................................................................................7 1.1.5 Tension cut-off..............................................................................................7 1.1.6 Summary of functions for the Plaxis Liquefaction Model (PLM)................8 Appendices...............................................................................................................14 1. List of model parameters .................................................................................15 2. Illustration, Verification and validation...........................................................16 2.1 Mobilization of the pi-plane during isochoric monotonic and cyclic loading..............................................................................................................16 2.2 Element tests ..............................................................................................18 2.2.1 Oedometer test ........................................................................................18 2.2.2 Triaxial Compression tests......................................................................19 2.2.3 Simple shear tests....................................................................................20 2.2.3.1 Drained and undrained monotonic simple shear tests..........................20 2.2.3.2 Drained and undrained cyclic simple shear tests .................................20 2.2.4 Validation of the model against triaxial stress state................................23 2.2.5 Boundary Value Problems ......................................................................31

4

.....20: Correlation between initial state parameter and peak friction angle for Nerlerk sand ............20 Figure 1.............17 Figure 1................... column 1) ............... intermediate and maximum principal stresses with respect to the principal direction of principal stresses σ1...... column 1...............25 Figure 1.......... with peak friction angle 400).................................................6: Stress path in a pi plane a) Plaxis liquefaction model (UBC3D)............ Figure 1...................... column 3.....31 ........22 Figure 1.................24 Figure 1.16: Model response during application of a constant shear stress cycles of 10kPa (Model parameters: table................................ column 4)18 Figure1.16 Figure 1..........List of Figures Page No................22 p Figure 1.................. contractive and very contractive samples (Model parameters: for blue lines......................................................................................................4 Figure 1... table 3.......19 Figure 1...24: Simulation of centrifuge test on a soil column.13: Drained simple shear simulation of a dilative sample (for orange lines. column 1....... table 3...... p2.....18: Influence of the parameter kG ..............................26 Figure 1..........21 Figure 1.............2: (general) The six arrangements of the minimum...... column 2) .....24 Figure 1......................12: Undrained simulations of dilative...14: Undrained simple shear simulation of a dilative sample (Model parameters: for blue lines..................4 Figure 1..22: Plots of volumetric strain versus axial strain from test results on the Nerlerk sand [data base of Golder Associates] ............................. ...........5: Schematization of the yield lines in p − q plane ................. table 3....16 Figure 1........................................ column 2) ..................................9: Comparison of stress-strain paths during isochoric cyclic deformation...................15: drained strain controlled cyclic simple shear response (Model parameters...................... σ2 and σ3 as specified by their eigenvectors p1....................................... column 5 [Drak blue: ϕ p = 320 red: ϕ p = 310 ).......21 Figure 1........................... and column 1) .............................10 Figure 1.......................... b) Hypoplasticity model ...10: Oedometer stress – strain curve (model parameters.............17: Model responses during application of a constant shear strain cycles (Model parameters: table....... table 3............. column 1).. Table 3...........................23: Plots of deviatoric stress versus mean normal stress from test results on the Nerlerk sand [data base of Golder Associates] ..................................... for orange lines..............................4: The Mohr-Coulomb yield surface and the representative sector surface..................26 Figure 1..........19: State of various Nerlerk sand samples considered relative to the critical state condition..............8: Stress path in a π plane a) Plaxis liquefaction model (UBC3D)......................... table 3................................ p3............... for orange lines...............21: Plots of deviatoric stress versus axial strain from test results on the Nerlerk sand [data base of Golder Associates] ...11: Stress strain curves during drained triaxial compression simulations of dilative and contractive samples (Model parameters: for blue lines........................20 Figure 1................................3: Projection of the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion in π plane .. ........................10 Figure 1.............................. 1 Illustration of the plane yield surfaces for cases: a) 1 and 4 b) c) d) of the Mohr-Coulomb model for zero cohesion c = 0 in principal stress space............................................................. table 3.........19 Figure1.....7: stress –strain paths during monotonic isochoric deformation at various stress states (for radial strain increments in π plane) ........ b) Hypoplasticity model during isochoric cyclic deformation (radial cycles of strain in the π plane) ...........................................................................3 Figure 1.................. .................................17 Figure 1.... table 3...

..................................................................................................................................................................25 Table 6: parameters used in the model .........................26: Deformed mesh (scaled 10 times) at the end of 30 dynamic seconds.......36 2 ......................37 Figure 1................33 Figure 1.......... etal) ...............32 Figure 1..... 36: Total displacement at the end of the 20 cycles (extreme total displacement about 7........31 Table 7: model parameters...............34 Figure 1.......................29: effective isotropic stress versus shear strength at point K... 35: Excess pore pressure profile at the end of the 20 cycles..........33 Figure 1....... ..... ...18 Table 4: summary of states of the various samples and critical state parameters of the Nerlerk sand .......2 Table 2: List of parameters .......15 Table 3: model parameters for the various runs.....................................................................24 Table 5: estimated state dependent model parameters..................... 32: Dam cross-section detail and points of LVDT measurement................ 33: Pore pressure accumulation during the cyclic loading PLM (UBC3D).................................. number of nodes 1961..39 Figure 1....Figure 1................................................32 Figure 1........ 2412.........................3m).................................... 34: Pore pressure accumulation during cyclic loading a) Experimental results and b) model runs using UBC2D (Byrne............................38 Figure 1... number of stress points.................................................................... Table 1: The six possibilities in generalized principal stress space....30: effective isotropic stress versus shear strength at point L .........................35 Figure 1................................. Total displacement (extreme value 67cm)........28: Excess pore pressure development at various points along the profle ....27: Excess pore pressure profile at the end of the calculation phase ...... average size 1.................25: Plaxis finite element mesh: Number of elements 201..................................39 List of Tables Page No...........36 Figure 1................92m.......31: effective isotropic stress versus shear strength at point M......................34 Figure 1....

Its simplicity in the formulation as well as the use of only already used parameters would make it a good candidate for modeling the behavior of granular materials. plastic potential function. the model is able to reproduce various stress-strain paths under different conditions. Most of the elastoplastic functions in this model are already existing functions in literatures of soil mechanics. While the flow rule reduces the strong contractive sense at lower mobilized friction angles and generally for contractive samples. Hence a plastic potential function based on Drucker-Pragers’s function has been used which maintains the assumption of stress-strain coaxiality in the deviatoric plane for a stress path beginning from an isotropic stress state. For mobilized friction angle bellow the critical friction angle. the flow rule is more contractive than Rowe’s. the modified flow rule can be used for a mobilized friction angle bellow the critical state friction angle and the exact Rowe’s formulation above the critical state friction angle. softening rule. it reduces the effect of dilatancy angle above the critical state friction angle.1. The UBC SAND model is a simple 2D model developed specially for prediction of liquefaction behavior of sand. the flow rule is less contractive than Rowe’s and above the critical friction angle. Besides its simplicity. The new model uses the MohrCoulomb yield condition in a generalized stress space. In this section we select functions (from available elastoplastic models) to develop a simple liquefaction model. To reduce this limitation. The functions can be formulated in any appropriate way. hardening rule. The unloading –reloading criteria in a 3D is relatively complicated than a 2D. Development of a Liquefaction Model Background: The main functions of an elastoplastic model are a yield function. which is a hyperbolic law relating the increment in mobilized friction angle with the plastic shear strain. the model has been verified in various applications related to liquefaction. In this model. The flow rule is based on the well known Rowe’s stress dilatancy formulation with a modification. The idea of this project has been to implement the UBCSAND model in Plaxis. The model has been developed and implemented in such a way various other functions can be easily integrated. and flow rule. a simple procedure based on the mobilized friction angle is used to model responses for load reversal and change of direction. primarily based on the elastoplastic functions mentioned thus far a generalized 3D formulation has been considered. The use of non associated plastic potential based on the same function as the yield function (with mobilized friction angle replaced by mobilized dilatancy angle) has been found to introduce noncoaxiality between the stress and the strain in the deviatoric plane. The original 2D model uses a Mohr-Coulomb yield function and a corresponding non associated plastic potential function. In general. 1 . The flow rule used by Byrne. et al. In the new model. Special feature of the model is perhaps the hardening rule. in the UBC sand model is a fair estimation of the Rowe’s stress dilatancy rule.

the well known Mohr-Coulomb yield surface has been used. Hence.1. a unique Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion can be defined in such a way: fm = σ max − σ min 2 ⎛ σ + σ min ⎞ − ⎜ max + c cot ϕ p ⎟ sin ϕm 2 ⎝ ⎠ (1.1) The intermediate stress state does not influence the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion. c(2.1. p2 . σ 2 . The Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion can therefore be constructed in such a way each stress is directed along its unique direction. There are various ways to construct a generalized 3D yield surface from the combination of these principal stresses.1 Yield function In this model. σ 3 (not sorted) are directed along the corresponding Cartesian unit eigenvectors p1 . The planes defined by the six cases can be visualized in Figure 1. there are three principal stresses. For a three dimensional problem. Each principal stress has its own unique direction in a Cartesian stress space. p3 respectively. The principal stresses can be sorted in sequence as σ min ≤ σ int ≤ σ max .1. This leads to the conception of combination of any two from the three. The case is illustrated in Table 1 Table 1: The six possibilities in generalized principal stress space Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 σ1 σ max σ max σ int σ min σ min σ int σ2 σ min σ int σ max σ max σ int σ min σ3 σ int σ min σ min σ int σ max σ max For the six cases. 2 . σ 1 . The yield function for the Mohr-Coulomb yield surface involves the maximum and the minimum stress components in the principal stress space.1 Basic elastoplastic functions 1.3) = 6 possible cases with a possibility one direction to accommodate the maximum and the minimum and the intermediate stress twice.

1 Illustration of the plane yield surfaces for cases: a) 1 and 4 b) c) d) of the Mohr-Coulomb model for zero cohesion c = 0 in principal stress space.σ2 σ2 Case 2 Case 5 Case 4 Case 1 σ1 σ1 σ3 σ3 a) b) σ2 Case 3 Case 6 σ1 σ3 (c) Figure 1. 3 .

The projection of the Mohr-Coulomb yield surface in a deviatoric plane is therefore as shown in Figure 1. σ2 A region in plane that satisfies all the six cases σ2 Space diagonal 4 3 2 5 σ1 6 1 σ1 σ3 π-plane σ3 Figure 1.3: Projection of the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion in π plane 4 .When all the 6 planes are combined in one figure and only the part with σ min ≤ σ int ≤ σ max is shown.2). σ2 and σ3 as specified by their eigenvectors p1. p2. p3. a general 3D surface of the Mohr-Coulomb criterion is obtained (Figure 1.2: (general) The six arrangements of the minimum.3: σ2 Regular Triaxial extension Triaxial compression σ3 σ1 Figure 1. intermediate and maximum principal stresses with respect to the principal direction of principal stresses σ1.

There are various hardening laws. the principal stresses should be sorted in such a way. the principal stresses (eigenvalues) and their corresponding directions (eigenvectors) are obtained by solving the eigenvalue problem given as: (σ ij − λ ( k )δ ij p (jk ) ) (1. To know in what region of the π plane we need to keep track of the original directions before the sorting and hence amend the eigenvectors accordingly. This is numerically done using a subroutine called PrnSig. After the sorting.1. The ridges are discontinuities which need special attention during numerical implementation.3) Once the eigenvalues and the eigen vectors are obtained. σ 2 = σ int and σ 3 = σ min . the sine of the mobilized friction angle is given as : 5 . the resulting value should fall on the Mohr-coulomb surface. The principal stresses σ k = λ ( k ) are obtained solving: det σ ij − λ ( k )δ ij = 0 ( ) (1.3 six sectors define the Mohr-Coulomb yield surface.1). The indices 1.2).As shown in Figure 1.2) Where λ ( k ) are the eigenvalues of the stress tensor and p (jk ) are the eigenvectors which define the direction of each eigenvalue (principal stress). 2 and 3 do not represent the actual indices obtained in equation (1. After the sorting we obtain sorted principal stresses in such a way σ 1 = σ max . Each of the sectors is defined by a regular surface and intersection plane with the neighboring sector.2 Plastic Hardening In elasto-plastic modeling hardening law governs the amount of plastic strain (irrecoverable deformation) as a result of mobilization of the yield surface in stress space. As long as the six functions are consistently used. Herein the hardening law used in the UBC2D sand model is utilized (with extension for a 3D implementation). Given the general stress tensor. According to the Mohr-Coulomb criterion. σ 1 ≥ σ 2 ≥ σ 3 . The intersections define states of triaxial compression and triaxial extension. the yield function can be defined based on the maximum and the minimum principal stresses according to equation (1. 1.

pm = σ max + σ min 2 The hardening rule according to Byrne. p is the mean normal stress .sin ϕm = qm pm (1. 1. Hence. g =q− 6sinψ m ( p + c cot ϕ p ) 3 − sinψ m (1.6) The hardening rule considered in this model is generally written as: ⎛ p ⎞ d sin ϕm = 1. the plastic potential function can be the same as the yield function with the mobilized friction angle replaced by mobilized dilatancy angle.1. et al relates the increment of the sine of the mobilized friction angle to the plastic shear strain increment according to: Gp d sin ϕ m = i pm p ⎛ sin ϕ m ⎞ R f ⎟ dγ p ⎜1 − ⎜ sin ϕ p ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ np p G 2 (1. Softening problems such as related to liquefaction type deformations require non associated flow rule. This function ensures a radial return without complication. p A is the atmospheric pressure in stress units and d λ is the plastic strain increment multiplier. In 2D the yield function is defined by a line.5k ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ pA ⎠ p G np ⎞ p A ⎛ sin ϕm Rf ⎟ dλ ⎜1 − ⎟ pm ⎜ sin ϕ p ⎝ ⎠ 2 (1.8) 6 .7) p Where kG is the plastic shear modulus number.5) ⎛p ⎞ Gi = k ⎜ m ⎟ p A ⎝ pA ⎠ (1.3 Plastic Potential function The plastic potential function specifies the direction of the plastic strain increment during the return mapping. np is model parameter for nonlinearity of stiffness dependency of the plastic shear modulus. In this model we selected the Drucker-Prager type plastic potential function.4) Where qm = σ max − σ min 2 .

which is given as: ft = σ t − σ 3 (13) Where σ t is the User defined tension cut-off and σ 3 is the minimum principal stress after sorting.10) 1.9) σ1 + σ 2 + σ 3 3 (1.Rowe’s stress dilatancy when exactly derived is given as sinψ m = ( sin ϕ m − sin ϕcv ) (1 − sin ϕ m . and a first version.g is a cone surface passing through triaxial compression points and is basically independent of Lode’s angle θ L : q= 1 2 2 2 (σ 1 − σ 2 ) + ( σ 2 − σ 3 ) + ( σ 1 − σ 3 ) 2 p=− { } (1.11) (1. 7 .12) Where d ε vp is the plastic volumetric strain increment and ϕcv is the constant volume friction angle.1. Note:. cap and so on. Hence the relation given in equation (1.12) is a simplified version as used in the UBC sand model. hence various complications are not considered such as drained softening.1. In this model we used the well known Rowe’s stress dilatancy relation.5 Tension cut-off In this model a yield function for tension cut-off is defined based on the minimum principal stress. 1.4 Flow rule The flow rule enables to relate the plastic shear strain to accumulation of plastic volumetric strain.sin ϕcv ) . d ε vp = sinψ m d γ p sinψ m = sin ϕm − sin ϕcv (1. This model is a relatively simple model.

1. Mobilized dilatancy angle (Rowe as used in the UBC sand model) sinψ m = sin ϕm − sin ϕcv 4.20) ⎛ p ⎞ d sin ϕm = 1. K ref and Gref are the bulk modulus and the shear modulus at reference mean normal stress pref and ne & me are parameters that take into account the nonlinear stress dependency of stiffness. Hardening law (1.19) 3.21) 8 .1.15) Where.6 Summary of functions for the Plaxis Liquefaction Model (UBC3D) The various elastoplastic functions used in the Plaxis liquefaction model are listed bellow.5k ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ pA ⎠ p G np ⎞ p A ⎛ sin ϕm Rf ⎟ dλ ⎜1 − ⎟ pm ⎜ sin ϕ p ⎝ ⎠ 2 (1. 1. pref is taken at atmospheric pressure pa = 100kPa . Yield Functions fm = σ1 − σ 3 2 ⎛ σ +σ3 ⎞ −⎜ 1 + c cot ϕ p ⎟ sin ϕm 2 ⎝ ⎠ (1. In most literature. Plastic potential functions gm = q − 6sinψ m ( p + c cot ϕ p ) 3 − sinψ m gt = σ t − σ 3 (1. Elastic stiffness tensor 2 ⎞ ⎛ Dijkl = ⎜ K − G ⎟ δ ijδ kl + 2Gδ ik δ jl 3 ⎠ ⎝ (1.14) ne K = K ref ⎛ p ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ pA ⎠ me ⎛ p ⎞ and G = Gref ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ pA ⎠ (1.18) (1. 1.16) (1.17) ft = σ t − σ 3 2.

[LEFT BLANK] 9 .

4: The Mohr-Coulomb yield surface and the representative sector surface q Combined criteria ft fm MC only Tension only Apex σt c cot ϕ p p Figure 1.σ1 One section considered Hydrostatic axis Apex σ2 σ3 Tension cut off Figure 1.5: Schematization of the yield lines in p − q plane 10 .

[LEFT BLANK] 11 .

1998. Int.-J. Gonzalez. P. M. No. Vol. 9: p. Mathematical and Physical Sciences... Series A.B. Duncan..M.. 1980. 29(3).. Evaluation of material models for liquefaction. Lee.. 10. M.-S. Edited by P. Instability of granular materials. Geotechnical Special Publication 56: 122-135. Wong. Drucker. T. Sharp. Geo-technical Special Publication 75 (1): 766-777.G. 2: 193-211. Can. L. Netherlands 12 . Appl. P.d. P.M. D. 3. P. Michael H Beaty and Peter Byrne. and W. Vermeer. 134. 2009. 23-27. San Diego. Rowe. R. Can. and R Holtz (eds. Vol.V. Dakoulas. HERON. and C. K.S. Lade.Relevant Literatures 1. No. 34. 8 2. Meth. Byrne. M. 1962. concerete and rock. H. Yin. Non associated-Plasticity for soils. J. 1997. Report UCB/GT/80–01. Y. Byrne. Geotech. Beaty. J. D. Beaty. 6.M. 4. Department of Geotechnical Engineering. 1952.. in Physics and Mechanics of liquefaction. 5. Strength. Liquefaction and deformation analysis using a total stress approach. The stress-dilatancy relation for static equilibrium of an assembly of particles in contact. P. 2002.. Delft University of Technology. Vol. Park. & Hughes. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III. 9.M.M. 2001. Math. Anal.C.W. Thesis. P. Analysis of CANLEX liquefaction embankments: prototype and centri-fuge models.. 1984. & Phillips. Puebla. and Marby. Quart. No... Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. University of California. Geotech.).F. Numerical modeling of liquefaction and comparison with centrifuge tests. 5: 641-657. 7. Campanella. Numer. 25: p. 1995. Prager. ASCE. Tsegaye. Wang. ASCE National Convention.. P. & Byrne. 41.. & Abdoun. Predicting liquefaction response of granular soils from pressuremeter tests.-H. 1351-1359. Soil mechanics and plastic analysis for limit design. Geomech. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Oct. MSc. Journal. Journal. 11. 2004. Roy. A. Byrne. J.A.M. M. 8. 381-389. 12. P. R. ASCE. 2007. The infuence of a non-associated fow rule on the calculation of the factor of safety of soil slopes. stressstrain and bulk modulus parameters for finite element analyses of stresses and movements in soil masses. Borst. Yegian. J. 269: 500–557. S. and R. An effective stress model for predicting liquefaction behaviour of sand. Byrne. Berkeley. P.

36(1): p. 13 . 1986. 65-78. R. Brinkgreve.13. M.J & W. 2004. 14. Broere (eds).D. Geotechnique. The strength and dilatancy of sands. The Netherlands. Delft University of Technology & Plaxis b..Bolton. Plaxis 2D-Version 8.B.v.

Appendices 14 .

fitting Drained Triaxial compression Drained Triaxial Compression Drained Triaxial Compression - Default value e kB p kG ne me np 0.5 0. fitting Empirical. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Parameter Name Elastic shear modulus number Elastic Bulk modulus number Plastic shear modulus number Elastic shear modulus index Elastic Bulk modulus index Plastic shear modulus index Constant volume friction angle Peak friction angle Cohesion Failure Ratio Tension cut-off Symbol e kG unit [ 0] [ 0] [kPa] [kPa] Method of determination Empirical.5 ϕcv ϕp c 0 0. fitting Empirical.1. fitting Empirical. fitting Empirical.95 0. fitting Empirical. List of model parameters Table 2: List of parameters No.5 0.0 Rf σt 15 .

5 0.2.1 X/P' -1.7: stress –strain paths during monotonic isochoric deformation at various stress states (for radial strain increments in π plane) 16 . Verification and validation 2. For verification of the return mapping.005 0.02 0.4 y/P' -0.5 -0. b) Hypoplasticity model 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 0. mobilization of stress paths in the π plane during isochoric monotonic and cyclic deformation has been compared to the hypoplasticity soil model.5 1.1 -0.02 AXIAL STRAIN 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 200 p'[kPa] 400 600 q[kPa] a) Plaxis Liquefaction model (UBC3D) 350 300 250 q[kPa] 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.03 Axial strain q[kPa] q[kPa] 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 100 200 300 P'[kPa] b) Hypoplasticity Figure 1.5 Y/P' -1.01 0.6 -1.01 0.6: Stress path in a pi plane a) Plaxis liquefaction model (UBC3D).4 1. 1.1 x/P' 0.9 0. Illustration.6 -1.5 Figure 1.015 0.1 Mobilization of the pi-plane during isochoric monotonic and cyclic loading.4 -0.5 1.9 0.1 -0.5 0.4 0.5 -0.

17 .006 Hypoplasticity Axial strain Figure 1.002 0.100 80 60 40 Y[kPa] 100 80 60 40 q[kPa] 20 0 -100 -50 -20 -40 -60 -80 P'[kPa] 0 50 100 20 0 -100 -50 -20 -40 -60 -80 X[kPa] 0 50 100 (a) (b) Figure 1. As shown in figures.9: Comparison of stress-strain paths during isochoric cyclic deformation.004 0. Unloading plasticity is not considered in this version. b) Hypoplasticity model during isochoric cyclic deformation (radial cycles of strain in the π plane) 120 100 80 q[kPa] 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 p'[kPa] 80 100 q[kPa] 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 60 p'[kPa] 80 100 a) PLM (UBC3D) b) Hypoplasticity 80 60 40 q[kPa] 0 -20 0 -40 -60 -80 P'[kPa] 20 50 100 Hypoplasticity 80 60 40 20 0 -20 0 -40 -60 -80 q[kPa] 0. the PLM (UBC3D) model shows a good agreement to mobilization of the stress path in the π plane to the hypoplastic model during isochoric deformation (both cyclic and monotonic).8: Stress path in a π plane a) Plaxis liquefaction model (UBC3D).

5 32 40 0 0.2.11 Oedometer stress path can be predicted. the prediction may not mach to experimental results.98 100 k e G e kB p kG ne me np ϕcv ϕp c Rf σt 2.98 100 4 600 400 600 0.5 32 32 0 0. Table 3.2.5 0. The numerical tests show the expected stress-strain paths under various conditions.5 0. However.5 0.5 0. column 4) σ 1 [kPa] 18 . The figures merely demonstrate the type of path in the said conditions.1 Oedometer test As shown in Figure 1. 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 0.98 100 3 200 400 100 0.5 ε1[%] 1 1000 900 800 700 σ_1 [N/m²] 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 σ_3 [N/m²] Figure 1.5 0.5 0.98 100 2 800 2000 1200 0.5 32 32.5 32 33 0 0. due to absence of a cap.98 100 5 600 400 800 0. Table 3: model parameters for the various runs parameter 1 400 900 400 0.5 0.5 32 32 0 0.2 Element tests The model is verified for various types of the conventional element tests.5 0. Since the aim of the liquefaction model is primarily to simulate the liquefaction behaviour of sand.5 0.31 0 0. adding a cap will not be an important issue.5 0.10: Oedometer stress – strain curve (model parameters.

for orange lines. column 1. column 5 [Drak blue: ϕ p = 320 red: ϕ p = 310 ) q[kPa] 19 . table 3. table 3.12: Undrained simulations of dilative. contractive and very contractive samples (Model parameters: for blue lines. column 2) 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 200 400 p'[kPa] 600 800 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 2 4 ε1[%] 6 8 q[kPa] Figure1. 6 1400 1200 800 600 400 200 0 0 5 10 e1[%] 15 20 softening not considered 1000 q[kPa] 5 4 eps_v[%] 3 2 1 0 -1 0 -2 ε1[%] 10 20 Figure1.2.11: Stress strain curves during drained triaxial compression simulations of dilative and contractive samples (Model parameters: for blue lines.2 Triaxial Compression tests The following figures show stress-strain paths of triaxial compression simulations under various conditions.2. The various simulations show the expected types of stress-strain. table 3. column 3. for orange lines. table 3. stress-stress paths under various conditions.

3. Figure 1.3 Simple shear tests Various simple shear tests are run in the Plaxis virtual lab tool.4 eps_v[% ] 1. This has been introduced using a simple procedure of loading and unloading criterion by tracking the mobilized friction angle.16 shows the model response during application of cyclic simple shear under drained condition.4 0. Both monotonic and cyclic simple shear simulations demonstrate the capability of the model to capture these types of soil responses.1 0 10 γ[%] 20 200 q[kPa] 150 100 50 0 0 5 10 γ[%] 15 20 25 Figure 1. table 3.9 2. column 2) 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 200 p'[kPa] 400 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 γ[%] 10 τxy[kPa] Figure 1.2.9 1.2 Drained and undrained cyclic simple shear tests The model can predict accumulations of volumetric strain during strain cycles of given amplitude. table 3.4 -0.2.2.9 0.1 Drained and undrained monotonic simple shear tests 300 250 2.13: Drained simple shear simulation of a dilative sample (for orange lines. 2. column 1) 2. This is also an important step towards modelling cyclic strain or stress induced liquefaction.3.2.14: Undrained simple shear simulation of a dilative sample (Model parameters: for blue lines. 20 τxy[kPa] . The type of pore pressure build up and effective stress path depict as obtained through various laboratory investigations.

4 Figure 1.5 5 0 0 50 100 150 200 -5 -10 -15 p'[kPa] γxy[%] Figure 1.5 -0.16: Model response during application of a constant shear stress cycles of 10kPa (Model parameters: table.5 -2 -2. our focus currently is on its applicability to model liquefaction behaviour of granular materials under various loading conditions.1 -20 -40 -60 γxy[%] eps_v[%] -0. The area is expected to be more dissipative than would have been from test results.5 -1 -1. 15 10 τxy[kPa] τxy[kPa] 15 10 5 0 -1 -0. table 3. column 1) 21 . Although the model is applicable to the general behaviour of granular materials. and column 1) The area of the loop in Figure 1. Figures demonstrate the applicability of the model for cyclic conditions.5 γ[%] 0.15: drained strain controlled cyclic simple shear response (Model parameters.16 gives the energy dissipated.3 -0.5 -0.6 0.1 0 -0.1 0.3 0.60 40 20 τxy[kPa] 0 -0.5 -5 -10 -15 0 0. This is due to the simple unloading reloading criteria introduced in the model.

17: Model responses during application of a constant shear strain cycles (Model parameters: table.57 kGp/kGe=0.8 kGp/kGe=0.37 kGp/kGe=0.6 -0.5 1 1.4 0.80 60 40 τxy[kPa] τxy[kPa] 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 0 0.4 -0.23 25 22 .18: Influence of the parameter kG eps_v 5 10 15 20 kGp/kGe=1 kGp/kGe=1.8 eps_a p Figure 1. with peak friction angle 400) 1000 900 800 700 q[kPa] 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 eps_a 15 20 25 kGp/kGe=1 kGp/kGe=1. column 1.2 -0.5 20 0 -20 -40 -60 p'[kPa] 0 50 100 150 200 γxy[%] Figure 1.6 0.8 kGp/kGe=0.57 kGp/kGe=0.23 0.2 0 0 -0.37 kGp/kGe=0.

this parameter requires special attention during simulation of liquefaction behaviour of sand.5 e 1+ v kB (23) 2.6 Dilative samples emin 0. Hence. e kG 1 − 2v = 1. Hence.9 emax ecsl Contractive samples void ratio 0. ϕcv is the constant volume friction angle and R f is the failure ratio. the initial states of various samples is shown in Figure: 0.849 respectively. For p contractive soils where liquefaction is expected.4 Validation of the model against triaxial stress state Nerlerk Sand From the data base of the Golder associates. lower values of kG have a significant effect on the volumetric strain accumulation of the simulated results. appropriate value of kG may be obtained from: p −72η sin 2 ϕ p kG = e k B ( ( 6 + η ) sin ϕ − 3η R p f ) 2 18 + ( 6 + η ) sin ϕcv 3η − ( 6 + η ) sin ϕcv (22) e Where k B is the bulk modulus number. It should be also noted that direct relation is obtained for the ratio of the plastic shear modulus number to the elastic bulk modulus number considering a stress independent Poisson’s ratio as.2.p As shown in Figure 1. η is the slope of the instability line. ϕ p is the peak friction angle.049 and 0. the reported values of the slope of the critical state void ratio and the critical state void ratio are 0.19.3 1 10 100 Confining pressure[kPa] 1000 10000 23 . assuming logarithmic relation with the mean normal pressure.

24) 24 .206 eqn1.1 ecs0 0.19: State of various Nerlerk sand samples considered relative to the critical state condition.768 0.98 45.783 0.70 76.206 eqn1.206 eqn1.056 λcs 0.757 0.1 -0.158 0.05 -0.80 ϕp 33 34 36 36 40 eqn1.849 Ψ0 -0.6599 R = 0.13 45.078 -0.78 0.751 0.20: Correlation between initial state parameter and peak friction angle for Nerlerk sand The peak friction angle is correlated with the initial state parameter according to: ϕ p ≈ 310 − 47 Ψ 0 (1.714 0.934 Sample ID CID_G151 CID_G154 CID_G155 CID_G156 CID_G157 CIU_G101 CIU_G103 CIU_G104 CIU_G105 CIU_G106 CIU_G107 CIU_G108 e0 0.16 92.639 0.15 -0.05 0 Initial state parameter 0 -0.063 0.758 0.725 0.10 54.049 RD 57.2 -0.47 39.032 -0.206 eqn1.051 0.96 47.008 -0.206 eqn1.021ϕp + 0.578 0.25 Peak friction angle[0] 10 20 30 40 50 Ψ= -0.27 41.206 Peak friction angle: 0.52 43.549 p0 200 50 500 200 200 500 500 700 500 500 700 500 ecs0 0.015 0.047 0.66 0.067 0.20 39.076 -0.8356 2 Figure 1.034 0.206 eqn1.62 71.773 emin 0. Table 4: summary of states of the various samples and critical state parameters of the Nerlerk sand emax~1.Figure 1.

equation (1.0 CID_G156 CID_G157 599.16 92.70 76.0 CID_G151 Deviatoric stress [%] 999.98 45. The critical state friction angle is about 30.62 71.051 875 876 902 901 887 931 882 kBp 282 234 379 346 456 219 221 245 250 233 279 228 1599.50.0 399. Table 5: estimated state dependent model parameters Sample ID CID_G151 CID_G154 CID_G155 CID_G156 CID_G157 CIU_G101 CIU_G103 CIU_G104 CIU_G105 CIU_G106 CIU_G107 CIU_G108 RD 57.24) gives a peak friction angle slightly lower than the critical state friction angle.0 CID_G154 CID_G155 799. the peak should rather be the critical state friction angle.For very contractive samples.0 0 5 10 Axial Strain [%] 15 20 25 Figure 1.27 41. However.0 1399.006 968 1.80 ϕp 33 34 36 36 40 28 28 29 30 29 31 29 kGe 419 393 464 446 485 403 404 416 416 409 429 407 KBe 909 853 1.10 54. From theoretical point of view.96 47.0 -1.0 199.20 39.0 1199.52 43.21: Plots of deviatoric stress versus axial strain from test results on the Nerlerk sand [data base of Golder Associates] 25 . the model behaviour of very contractive soils supports slightly lower peak friction angle value.47 39.13 45.

0 1199.0 q [kPa] 799.0 CID_G151 CID_G154 CID_G155 CID_G156 CID_G157 199.23: Plots of deviatoric stress versus mean normal stress from test results on the Nerlerk sand [data base of Golder Associates] 26 .0 400.0 0.22: Plots of volumetric strain versus axial strain from test results on the Nerlerk sand [data base of Golder Associates] 1599.0 Figure 1.9 8 CID_G151 7 6 Volumetric Strain [%] 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 -1 Axial Strain [%] 5 10 15 20 25 CID_G154 CID_G155 CID_G156 CID_G157 Figure 1.0 p'[kPa] 800.0 1000.0 1399.0 Mc 599.0 200.0 -1.0 1200.0 Critical state friction angle 999.0 600.0 1 399.

5 0 0 -0.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 CID_G151 -0.5 3 2.5 0 -1 1600 1400 Deviator Stress q (kPa) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 5 simulation Experiment Volumetric strain (%) 5 10 15 20 25 10 15 Axial strain (%) 20 25 Axial strain (%) Confining stress 500kPa 27 .5 -1 Axial strain (%) Confining stress 200kPa CID_G154 140 Deviator Stress q (kPa) Volumetric strain (%) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 Axial strain (%) 20 25 Simulation Experiment 2 1.5 CID_G154 10 20 30 Axial strain (%) Confining stress 50kPa CID_G155 CID_G155 4.Model response during drained simulations of the Nerlerk sand CID_G151 600 Deviator Stress q (kPa) Volumetric strain (%) 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 10 20 Axial strain (%) 30 Simulation Experiment 1.5 4 3.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 1 0.

CID_G156 600 Deviator Stress q (kPa) Volumetric strain (%) 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 10 Axial strain (%) 20 simulation experiment 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 0 CID_G156 10 Axial strain (%) 20 Confining stress 200 kPa 800 Deviator Stress q (kPa) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 CID_G157 CID_G157 10 Volumetric strain (%) 8 6 4 2 0 -2 0 10 20 30 simulation experiment 10 20 Axial strain (%) 30 Axial strain (%) Undrained 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 100 CID_G101a Deviator Stress q (kPa) 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Axial Strain (%) q (kPa) simulation experiment 200 300 400 500 p' (kPa) Confining pressure 500kPa 28 .

1) experiment 400 p' (kPa) 600 Axial Strain (%) Confining pressure 700kPa 350 300 250 q (kPa) 200 150 100 50 0 0 100 CIU_G105 350 Deviator Stress q (kPa) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 200 300 p' (kPa) 400 500 0 CIU_G105 simulation(nu=0.1) simulation(nu=0.1) experiment 5 10 Axial Strain (%) 15 Confining pressure 500kPa 29 .300 250 200 q (kPa) 150 100 50 0 0 100 CIU_G103 300 Deviator Stress q (kPa) 250 200 150 100 50 0 200 300 400 500 0 CIU_G103 simulation(nu=0.2) experiment 10 20 30 p' (kPa) Axial Strain (%) Confining pressure 500kPa CIU_G104 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 200 400 Deviator Stress q (kPa) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 -1 9 19 29 CIU_G104 q (kPa) simulation(nu=0.

1) experiment 10 15 Axial Strain (%) 20 25 Confining pressure 500kPa Drained simulations show a good agreement until the phase transformation. volumetric accumulation due to dilatancy is lower than seen in the experiments. 30 . et al under predicts the volumetric strain accumulation beyond the phase transformation line. As compared to the original Rowe’s stress dilatancy formulation. the stress dilatancy formulation used by Byrne. Beyond the phase transformation point.CIU_G107 600 Deviator Stress q (kPa) 500 q (kPa) 400 300 200 100 0 0 200 400 p' (kPa) 600 simulation(nu=0.1) experiment CIU_G107 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 Axial Strain (%) 300 250 200 q (kPa) 150 100 50 0 0 200 CIU_G108 300 Deviator Stress q (kPa) 250 200 150 100 50 0 p' (kPa) 400 600 0 5 CIU_G108 simulation(nu=0. This is partially due to the flow rule used in this model.

A base motion of 50 cycles of 0. L N Q 1. 50 cycles. Anchors A C F D G I. K O M P B Z=0. In this section.5 Hz a) Set up b) Schematization Figure 1. Table 6: parameters used in the model Layer 1 (25) ϕcv 31 ϕp 32 e kG e kB p kG Others Default value (see table) 1200 1000 2500 The following results are generally reported at the end of the calculation phase (30 dynamic seconds).8m 30.0m Plate element Input base motion. 1. An initial k 0 value of 0. 31 .24: Simulation of centrifuge test on a soil column The time history of the base acceleration is therefore given as: a = 0.2.2 g sin ( 2π ft ) where f is the frequency and g is the acceleration of gravity. 0. 1.5 Boundary Value Problems Thus far various element tests demonstrated that the model captures essential behaviours of granular materials in both drained and undrained flow boundary conditions.30m 13.30m 6.8m 37.1m 24.5Hz is applied.2g.5 is considered.0m 38.0m E H J.2. Shear wave under a soil column (Centrifuge test 1) The following figure shows a uniform horizontal sand layer of thickness 37m.2g acceleration at a frequency of 1. we shall demonstrate the general applicability of the model in a finite element scheme.

Standard earthquake boundary Prescribed dynamic diplacement of 1cm Figure 1.92m Figure 1.25: Plaxis finite element mesh: Number of elements 201.26: Deformed mesh (scaled 10 times) at the end of 30 dynamic seconds. 2412. Total displacement (extreme value 67cm) 32 . number of stress points. average size 1. number of nodes 1961.

Various plots at selected points demonstrate the capability of the model to capture pore pressure accumulation in dynamic calculations leading to liquefaction. This shows the near liquefaction (liquefaction phenomena).Figure 1.27: Excess pore pressure profile at the end of the calculation phase As seen in figure. 300 A B C D E F G H I 250 Excess Pore Pressure[kPa] 200 150 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 Dynamic time[s] 25 30 35 Figure 1.28: Excess pore pressure development at various points along the profle 33 . the pore pressure develops to the extent of the vertical stress along the profile.

The significant loss of shear strength as a result of the very high excess pore pressure is shown in the following graphs at sample points.29: effective isotropic stress versus shear strength at point K 140 L L 120 100 q[kPa] 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 p' [kPa] 100 120 140 160 180 Figure 1. 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 p' [kPa] 120 140 160 180 K q[kPa] Figure 1.30: effective isotropic stress versus shear strength at point L 34 .

31: effective isotropic stress versus shear strength at point M The start of the stress path is defined by a k0 value of 0. In each acceleration cycle.180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 M M q[kPa] 150 p' [kPa] 200 250 Figure 1. 35 . the effective confining stress decreases by the amount of the excess pore pressure per cycle.5.

Excavate the lower portion Phase 2. the rigid walls both the base and the vertical sides can be considered at the same relative position to each other during the shaking (Byrne. A bed shake with 0. 36 .75m 7.01m Phase 3.0m Figure 1. Shear wave under embankment (centrifuge test 2) The dam cross-section shown in Figure 1.0m 24.2g of 20cycles of frequency 1Hz represent a dynamic ground shaking similar to an earthquake.5m A B C D E F G 5.5m 2.0m 15. Apply dynamic displacement of 0.0m 12.0m 4. et al). Table 7: model parameters Layer 1 ϕcv 34.0m 2.33 is used for further verification of application of the model for earthquake induced liquefaction analysis.0m 20. 1. 32: Dam cross-section detail and points of LVDT measurement For modelling.5m 5.4 0 ϕp 35 0 e kG e kB p kG Others Default value (see table) 1000 800 1000 Calculation phases Phase 1. Apply acceleration multiplier from input file.2.

33: Pore pressure accumulation during the cyclic loading PLM (UBC3D) 37 . 14 12 EPP[kPa] 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 Dynamic time[sec] 15 20 σ'v0 A 35 30 25 EPP[kPa] 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Dynamic time[sec] σ'v0 B 70 60 50 EPP[kPa] 40 30 20 10 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Dynamic time[sec] σ'v0 C Figure 1.The following results are generated at the end of the phase (only sample results are shown).

pp5 and pp1 respectively as denoted in the following figures) the results of the UBC2D model and experimental results are shown. a) b) Figure 1.For these points (A . B and C. etal) 38 . 34: Pore pressure accumulation during cyclic loading a) Experimental results and b) model runs using UBC2D (Byrne.pp6.

Figure 1.As demonstrated in Figure 1-34.3m). A Dilative. 39 . Pore pressure A Section A-A Figure 1. the PLM (UBC3D) model is capable of predicting pore pressure accumulation during cyclic loading. 36: Total displacement at the end of the 20 cycles (extreme total displacement about 7. 35: Excess pore pressure profile at the end of the 20 cycles. Suction pressure Contractive.