Next Article in Journal
3D In Situ Stress Estimation by Inverse Analysis of Tectonic Strains
Previous Article in Journal
A Preliminary Study on the Use of Xylit as Filter Material for Domestic Wastewater Treatment
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Calibration of Finn Model and UBCSAND Model for Simplified Liquefaction Analysis Procedures

1
Department of Civil Engineering, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung 40227, Taiwan
2
Public Works Department, Pingtung County Government, Pingtung City 900219, Taiwan
3
Department of Soil and Water Conservation, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung 40227, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 12 April 2021 / Revised: 16 May 2021 / Accepted: 26 May 2021 / Published: 7 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Earth Sciences)

Abstract

:
Soil-liquefaction-related hazards can damage structures or lead to an extensive loss of life and property. Therefore, the stability and safety of structures against soil liquefaction are essential for evaluation in earthquake design. In practice, the simplified liquefaction analysis procedure associated with numerical simulation analysis is the most used approach for evaluating the behavior of structures or the effectiveness of mitigation plans. First, the occurrence of soil liquefaction is evaluated using the simplified procedure. If soil liquefaction occurs, the resulting structural damage or the following mitigation plan is evaluated using the numerical simulation analysis. Rational and comparable evaluation results between the simplified liquefaction analysis procedure and the numerical simulation analysis are achieved by ensuring that the liquefaction constitutive model used in the numerical simulation has a consistent liquefaction resistance with the simplified liquefaction analysis procedure. In this study, two frequently used liquefaction constitutive models (Finn model and UBCSAND model) were calibrated by fitting the liquefaction triggering curves of most used simplified liquefaction analysis procedures (NCEER, HBF, JRA96, and T-Y procedures) in Taiwan via FLAC program. In addition, the responses of two calibrated models were compared and discussed to provide guidelines for selecting an appropriate liquefaction constitutive model in future projects.

1. Introduction

Soil-liquefaction-related hazards (lateral spreading, settlement of shallow foundations, uplift of underground structures, etc.) can severely damage structures or result in a considerable loss of life and property. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the stability and safety of structures against soil liquefaction. In practice, the evaluation is usually performed in three steps: (1) a simplified liquefaction analysis procedure or a cyclic test is used to evaluate the occurrence of soil liquefaction at a site during the design earthquake; (2) if the site is liquefied, effects of liquefaction hazards on structures are evaluated via an empirical procedure, a numerical simulation analysis, or a physical model test; and (3) a mitigation plan is necessary if structures are damaged due to liquefaction hazards. The effectiveness of a mitigation plan can also be evaluated via an empirical procedure, a numerical simulation analysis, or a physical model test. However, because of limited budgets and tight schedules, physical model tests are rarely used in practice. Instead, the simplified liquefaction analysis or the cyclic test used in the first step combined with the numerical simulation analysis used in the senond and third steps become the most used approaches in practice.
In the numerical simulation analysis, an appropriate liquefaction constitutive model is required to model the soil liquefaction phenomenon. The liquefaction constitutive model should have a consistent liquefaction resistance with the simplified liquefaction analysis procedure or experiment results used in the first step of the evaluation to obtain reasonable and comparable evaluation results in the second and thrid steps. Therefore, the input parameters of the liquefaction constitutive model should be calibrated to capture key aspects (liquefaction triggering and post-liquefaction deformation) of the simplified liquefaction analysis procedure or the cyclic test results [1].
In the past few decades, liquefaction constitutive models were improved from loose coupled effective stress models (e.g., Finn model) to fully coupled effective stress models (e.g., UBCSAND model and PM4SAND model). However, it remains a difficult task for engineers to choose an appropriate liquefaction constitutive model and representable values of model input parameters. Given that the techniques for sampling undisturbed sand samples (e.g., frozen sampling) are expensive and difficult, most projects do not obtain undisturbed sand samples; as such, reliable cyclic test results cannot be achieved. Therefore, the results of site-specific cyclic tests are usually not available; instead, the simplified liquefaction procedure is used to evaluate the occurrence of soil liquefaction on a site. When numerical analysis is needed for subsequent evaluations, many engineers assign the input parameters of the liquefaction constitutive model following the model’s default values without performing a proper model calibration. This practice results in an inconsistent liquefaction resistance (cyclic resistance ratio, CRR) between the simplified liquefaction analysis procedure and the liquefaction constitutive model, leading to numerical simulation results that are not representable and comparable.
Among all liquefaction constitutive models, the Finn model and the UBCSAND model are widely used to explore liquefaction behaviors or liquefaction-related hazards in research or practical projects [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. In these projects, the Finn model or the UBCSAND model were calibrated against dynamic test results [2,5,6,9], physical modeling test results [2,4,5,8], or data from real earthquake cases [4,7,9]. However, none of these projects were calibrated for simplified liquefaction procedures (NCEER, HBF, JRA96, and T-Y procedures) [10,11,12,13] commomly used in Taiwan. Therefore, when subsequent numerical simulation is needed, no calibrated input parameters can be used as references for engineers.
In this study, the Finn and UBCSAND models were calibrated by fitting the liquefaction triggering curves of NCEER, HBF, JRA96, and T-Y procedures [10,11,12,13] via FLAC program. In addition, model responses of the Finn model and the UBCSAND model were compared to explore model limitations. Results of this study provide engineers with a valuable reference for evaluating liquefaction hazards.

2. Constitutive Models

2.1. Finn Model

Martin et al. [14] noted that the irrecoverable volume strain (causing the fluid pressure change) and the cyclic shear strain amplitude of sand are related, and this relationship is independent of the confining stress. In addition, the accumulation rate of the volumetric strain decreases as the accumulated volumetric strain increases. An incremental shear volume coupling equation for sand under simple shear loading was proposed as follows:
dεv = C1(γC2εv) + (C3εv2/(γ + C4εv)),
where v is the volumetric strain increment per cycle of shear strain, εv is the accumulated volumetric strain, γ is the amplitude of shear strain of the stress cycle in the calculation, and C1 to C4 are model constants related to the relative density of sand.
Byrne [15] proposed an alternative form of v that has fewer model constants and is simpler than the original form [14]:
dεv/γ = C1(exp(−C2εv/γ)),
where C1 and C2 are model constants related to the relative density of sand.
In Equation (2), C1 controls the amount of the volumetric strain increment, and C2 controls the rate of the volume strain accumulation. Byrne [15] provided relationships between model constants (C1 and C2) and the SPT N-value as a reference for users.
In FLAC [16], a built-in constitutive model, the Finn model, was coded and incorporated Equations (1) and (2) into the Mohr–Coulomb model to simulate the dynamic pore pressure generation under cyclic loading. In practice, Equation (2) [15] is mostly used because of its convenience and simplicity.

2.2. UBCSAND Model

The UBCSAND model [17,18] is a simple elastoplastic stress/strain model for simulating the liquefaction phenomenon of sand with a relative density less than 80%. The elastic and plastic responses of the model are briefly described in this section. The elastic response is assumed to be isotropic and governed by shear modulus, Ge, and bulk modulus, Be, as follows:
Ge = KGe × Pa × (σ′/Pa)ne,
Be = KBe × Pa × (σ′/Pa)me,
where KGe is the elastic shear modulus number which can be related to the SPT N-value, Pa is the atmospheric pressure, σ′ is the mean effective stress in the plane of loading, ne is the exponent variable that relates the elastic shear modulus to the mean effective stress, KBe is the elastic bulk modulus number (which depends on Poisson’s ratio), and me is the elastic exponent variable that relates the bulk modulus to the mean effective stress.
Plastic responses are divided into the plastic shear strain, γp, and the plastic volumetric strain, εvp, controlled by the yield surface and the flow rule. The yield surface is represented by a radial line from the origin in σ′–τ space (mean effective stress–shear stress space, Figure 1). When the shear stress ratio (η = τ/σ′) changes, the plastic shear strain increment, p, occurs as follows:
dγp = (σ′/Gp) × ,
Gp = Gip × (1 − (η/ηf × Rf))2,
Gip = KGp × Pa × (σ′/Pa)np,
where Gp is the plastic shear modulus, is the stress ratio increment, Gip is the plastic shear modulus at a low shear stress ratio level, ηf (= sinφpeak) is the failure stress ratio, φpeak is the peak friction angle, Rf is the failure ratio, KGp is the plastic shear modulus number, and np is an exponent variable that relates the plastic shear modulus to the mean effective stress.
A non-associated flow rule is adopted to connect the plastic volumetric strain increment, vp, with the plastic shear strain increment, p, as follows:
vp = (sinφcvτ/σ′) × dγp,
where φcv is the constant volume friction angle or phase transformation angle. The direction of the plastic potential increment (i.e., the direction of the arrow on the yield surface) is shown in Figure 1. When the shear stress ratio η (= τ/σ′) is equal to sinφcv, there is zero plastic volumetric strain increment, and the material is in a constant-volume condition. When η is higher than sinφcv, vp is negative, and the material is in a dilation condition. When η is lower than sinφcv, vp is positive, and the material is in a contraction condition. The detailed information of the UBCSAND model is described in the literature [17,18,19].
The UBCSAND model was coded with FLAC [16] and validated by many studies [17,18,20,21,22,23,24] via application to centrifuge tests, laboratory tests, and earthquake measurements. Beaty and Byrne [19] provide a set of calibrated model input parameters against the liquefaction triggering curve of the NCEER procedure [10].

3. Methodology of Model Calibration

In this study, the constitutive models are calibrated using a single-element simulation of a cyclic undrained direct simple shear (DSS) test for four simplified liquefaction analysis procedures, including NCEER [10], HBF [11], JRA96 [12], and T-Y [13] procedures.
The initial stress condition is the Ko (coefficient of earth pressure at rest) condition. The liquefaction criteria specify that the excess pore pressure ratio, ru (= excess pore pressure/vertical effective consolidation stress), is equal to or greater than 95% at 15 cycles of uniform shear loading under one atmosphere (101 kPa) vertical effective consolidation stress (σvc′). Given that the laboratory test results for these simplified liquefaction analysis procedures were lacking, the Finn model and the UBCSAND model were calibrated by fitting the liquefaction triggering curves of these simplified procedures (Figure 2). For simplicity and comparison purposes, the constitutive models were both calibrated at selected SPT N-values ((N1)60cs = 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30). (N1)60cs is the equivalent clean-sand SPT-N value at the energy ratio of 60% and under one atmosphere overburden stress.
The primary parameters of the Finn model with Byrne formulation are listed in Table 1. In this study, only C2 was adjusted to fit the liquefaction triggering curves. C1 and C3 were values adopted from those proposed by Byrne [15], and other parameters were adopted equations suggested by Beaty and Byrne [19]. Because the Finn model cannot fully simulate the shear modulus degradation under cyclic loadings, it was combined with FLAC’s built-in hysteretic model during the calibration to achieve reasonable predictions of shear strain and volumetric strain.
The primary parameters of the UBCSAND model are listed in Table 2. The plastic shear modulus, Gp, is the key factor affecting the accumulation of the excess pore pressure and the CRR. The calibration process was simplified by adjusting the paraemeters related to plastic shear modulus (KGp and np) and maintaining other parameters same with the values provided by Beaty and Byrne [19]. The UBCSAND model can model the shear modulus degradation behavior, and no supplementary hysteretic model is needed.
Relationships of the input parameters provided by Beaty and Byrne [19] are listed in Table 3 and described as follows. The small strain shear modulus (Gmax) is estimated using equations in the literature [25,26]:
Gmax = 21.7 × (K2)max × Pa × (σ′/Pa)0.5,
(K2)max = 3.5 × (DR)2/3 = 20 × ((N1)60cs)1/3,
where (K2)max is a modulus parameter, Pa is atmospheric pressure, σ’ is the mean effective stress in the plane of loading, and DR is the relative density of sand. Then, Gmax and KGe can be expressed as follows:
Gmax = 21.7 × 20 × ((N1)60cs)1/3 × Pa × (σ’/Pa)0.5,
KGe = 21.7 × 20 × ((N1)60cs)1/3 and ne = 0.5,
The constant-volume friction angle (φcv) was chosen as the typical value for quartz sands (φcv = 33°). The other inputs (φpeak, KGp, np, Rf, m_hfac1) in Table 3 were obtained based on the calibration process presented in Beaty and Byrne [19].

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Finn Model

Table 4 and Table 5 list the calibrated inputs for all four simplified liquefaction analysis procedures. The friction angle (φ) was φpeak in Table 3 with a small modification, and the dilation angle, Ψ (= φ − φcv), is the difference between φ and φcv. Cohesion (C) was assigned a value of 1 kPa for numerical simulation stability. The model parameters C1 and C3 followed the suggested equations and values of Byrne [15]. The Finn model was combined with a FLAC built-in hysteretic model (the Hardin hysteretic model) [27] to model the shear modulus degradation curve of sand [25]. The shear modulus reduction equation of the Hardin hysteretic model is expressed as follows:
G/Gmax = 1/(1 + (γ/γref)),
where G is the current shear modulus under the cyclic loading, Gmax is the small strain shear modulus (i.e., G in Table 4), γ is the current shear strain under the cyclic loading, and γref is the reference shear strain corresponding to γ when the shear modulus reduction ratio is 0.5 (=G/Gmax).
Table 5 shows that for NCEER and HBF procedures, the values of C_Finn at (N1)60cs = 25 could not be determined because the excess pore pressure ratio, ru, was not able to meet the liquefaction criteria. Values of C_Finn (= C1 × C2) for (N1)60cs between the values listed in Table 5 could be linearly interpolated.

4.2. UBCSAND Model

In the UBCSAND model calibration, the parameters related to the plastic shear (KGp and np) were adjusted, and all other input parameters were kept the same as the values and equations listed in Table 3. After several trials, in which an np of 0.4 was maintained and KGp was changed to fit the liquefaction triggering curves (Table 6), the model responses yielded the best results. Because the case of (N1)60cs = 30 in NCEER and HBF procedures were not able to meet the liquefaction criteria, the relationships of NCEER and HBF procedures were only valid to (N1)60cs = 25.

4.3. Comparisons of Undrained Cyclic DSS Responses

Beaty and Perlea [28] compared the responses of the Finn model and the UBCSAND model from dynamic analyses of an embankment. However, the element responses between the Finn model and the UBCSAND model were not discussed. In this section, the element responses of undrained cyclic DSS simulations of the Finn model and the UBCSAND model are compared and discussed in terms of (1) stress–strain relationships (shear stress–shear strain, shear stress–vertical effective stress, and excess pore pressure accumulation); and (2) factors affecting the CRR (the number of uniform loading cycles, overburden stress, and static shear stress).
Figure 3 shows the relationships between shear stress–shear strain and shear stress–vertical effective stress. The responses of JRA96 (N1)60cs = 10 cases were selected as an illustration. Both models treat the unloading response as elastic to simplify the formulation of the model. The accumulation of the volumetric strain (i.e., the accumulation of excess pore pressure ratio, ru, or the decrease in the vertical effective stress) of the Finn model occurs every half cycle of loading, whereas the UBCSAND model accumulates during each cycle of loading. The key features that a liquefaction constitutive model attempts to simulate are: (1) banana loop—the plastic shear modulus reduces and increases during a shear stress reversal (from positive shear stress to negative shear stress and vice versa) when the soil reaches the initial liquefaction; and (2) butterfly loop—a significant drop in the vertical effective stress and a subsequent increase in the vertical effective stress when the soil reaches the initial liquefaction.
The stress–strain curve and the stress path in Figure 3b show that the UBCSAND model could imitate the banana loop and the butterfly loop well because the model tracks the stress ratio history to account for the loading reversal effect on the plastic shear modulus. In addition, the UBCSAND model captured the accumulation of the shear strain during cyclic loading better than the Finn model.
Curves of excess pore water pressure generation are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5 against curves suggested by Seed et al. [29]. The cycle ratio is defined as the number of cycles (N) divided by the number of cycles to liquefaction (Nliq). When the cycle ratio was close to 1.0 (or 0.8~1.0), the excess pore pressure ratio, ru, of high (N1)60cs cases (= 20, 25, 30) of the UBCSAND model was relatively low (Figure 5) because of the high dilation angle of these cases. Nevertheless, in general, both models were able to capture the general trend of the accumulated excess pore pressure during cyclic loading.
Laboratory tests show that the CRR is related to the number of uniform loading cycles, N (related to the earthquake magnitude). The relationship between the CRR and N can be approximated with a power function:
CRR = a × Nb,
where a and b are determined by regression against the experimental data. The normalized CRR (CRR/CRRN=15) versus Nliq curves (the weighting curves) are plotted in Figure 6 against the b = 0.34 (typical value for clean sand) curve [30]. The weighting curves of both models follow the trend of the typical clean sand curve, indicating that the effects of earthquake magnitude on the CRR could be adequately modeled.
The effects of the overburden stress and the static shear stress on the CRR were compared with published relationships for cases of the NCEER procedure (Figure 7 and Figure 8) because only the NCEER procedure includes these effects in the CRR calculation. The overburden stress effect is represented by Kσ [30] and compared with the proposed relationships [10]:
Kσ = (σvc′/Pa)(f−1),
where σvc′ is the vertical effective consolidation stress, Pa is the atmospheric pressure, and f is the model constant (DR = 40~60% and f = 0.8~0.7, DR = 60~80% and f = 0.7~0.6). The parameter m_hfac1 (refer to Table 2 and Table 3) of the UBCSAND model is used to include the overburden stress effect. Using the calibrated relationships of m_hfac1 [19], Figure 7 shows that the Kσ of the UBCSAND model was in good agreement with the proposed curves [10]. The Finn model could capture the decrease in Kσ with increasing σvc′, but the effect of DR on Kσ did not coincide well with those of the curves from the NCEER procedure.
The effect of static shear stress on the CRR is represented by Kα [31] and compared with experimental data [32]. Figure 8 shows that the Kα of the UBCSAND model was in good agreement with experimental data. The Finn model captured the trend of Kα at the case of (N1)60 = 5 only. In summary, Kσ and Kα were poorly modeled by the Finn model because the dilatant behavior of sand cannot be modeled appropriately by the simple formulation of the Finn model.

5. Conclusions

Soil-liquefaction-related hazards can damage structures via different mechanisms. In practice, the occurrence of soil liquefaction on a site is evaluated by a simplified liquefaction analysis procedure. Then, the damage of structures due to liquefaction hazards and the effectiveness of mitigation plans are explored by numerical simulation. Therefore, the liquefaction constitutive model used in numerical simulation should have a liquefaction resistance that is consistent with the simplified liquefaction analysis procedure in order to obtain reasonable and comparable evaluation results. In this study, the Finn model and the UBCSAND model were calibrated by fitting liquefaction triggering curves of four simplified liquefaction analysis procedures (NCEER, HBF, JRA96, and T-Y procedures). The calibration results are summarized as follows:
(1)
The Finn model was not capable of modeling the banana-shaped stress–strain path and the butterfly-shaped stress path observed in the laboratory test. In contrast, the UBCSAND model could approximately capture these behaviors by tracking the stress ratio history to modify the plastic shear modulus.
(2)
Both models provided reasonable simulations of the excess pore pressure accumulation during cyclic loadings.
(3)
The relationship between the CRR and the number of uniform loading cycles of the UBCSAND model fit the proposed curves [30] well. The Finn model simulation data deviated from the proposed curves but were still in a reasonable range. Thus, both models were able to adequately model the effects of earthquake magnitude on the CRR.
(4)
The UBCSAND model reasonably captured the overburden stress effect and the static shear stress effect on the CRR. Given that the dilatant behavior of sand is not included in the formulations of the Finn model, these effects on the CRR were poorly represented by the Finn model.
(5)
The Finn model can be used for the preliminary numerical simulation of structural damage caused by the strength reduction of the liquefiable soil. In general conditions, the UBCSAND model is highly recommended for numerical simulation to obtain reasonable and reliable results.
(6)
When the effect of liquefaction hazards or the effectiveness of a mitigation plan need to be evaluated via the numerical analysis, engineers can choose model input parameters according to the (N1)60cs and the simplified liquefaction analysis procedure used in the evaluation of the soil liquefaction occurrence. Then, the numerical analysis can provide reasonable and comparable results.

Author Contributions

J.-C.C. developed the conceptualization; J.-C.C. and D.-G.L. worked on the methodology; J.-C.C. and H.-T.Y. performed the numerical analysis and analyzed the data; J.-C.C. prepared the draft manuscript; D.-G.L. revised the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research and the APC were funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan R.O.C. under Grant No. MOST 109-2221-E-005-007-MY3.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan R.O.C., for its support under Grant No. MOST 109-2221-E-005-007-MY3. We also like to thank Der-Guey Lin for valuable suggestions on the numerical simulation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Giannakou, A.; Travasarou, T.; Ugalde, J.; Chacko, J. Calibration Methodology for Liquefaction Problems Considering Level and Sloping Ground Conditions. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Santiago, Chile, 11–13 January 2011. Paper No. CMFGI. [Google Scholar]
  2. Beaty, M.H. Application of UBCSAND to the LEAP centrifuge experiments. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 104, 143–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Anthi, M.; Gerolymos, N. A Calibration procedure for sand plasticity modeling in earthquake engineering: Application to TA-GER, UBCSAND and PM4SAND. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Rome, Italy, 17–20 June 2019; pp. 17–20. [Google Scholar]
  4. Giannakou, A.; Travasarou, T.; Chacko, J. Numerical Modeling of Liquefaction-Induced Slope Movements. In Proceedings of the GeoCongress 2012: State of the Art and Practice in Geotechnical Engineering, Oakland, CA, USA, 25–29 March 2012; pp. 663–672. [Google Scholar]
  5. Shriro, M.; Bray, J.D. Calibration of Numerical Model for Liquefaction-Induced Effects on Levees and Embankments. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Chicago, IL, USA, 29 April–4 May 2013. [Google Scholar]
  6. Choobbasti, A.J.; Selatahneh, H.; Petanlar, M.K. Effect of fines on liquefaction resistance of sand. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2020, 5, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Soroush, A.; Koohi, S. Numerical analysis of liquefaction-induced lateral spreading. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–6 August 2004; p. 2123. [Google Scholar]
  8. Iraji, A.; Osouli, A. Liquefaction Numerical Analysis of a Cantilevered Retaining Wall Using a Simple Finn-Byrne Model. In Proceedings of the Geo-Congress 2020: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Special Topics, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 25–28 February 2020; pp. 41–50. [Google Scholar]
  9. Elgamal, A.; Yang, Z.; Parra, E. Computational modeling of cyclic mobility and post-liquefaction site response. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2002, 22, 259–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Youd, T.L.; Idriss, I.M.; Andrus, R.D.; Arango, I.; Castro, G.; Christian, J.T.; Dobry, R.; Liam, F.W.D.; Harder, L.F., Jr.; Hynes, M.E.; et al. Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 2011, 127, 817–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Huang, J.H.; Chen, C.H.; Juang, C.H. Calibrating the model uncertainty of the HBF simplified method for assessing liquefaction potential of soils. Sino-Geotech. 2012, 133, 77–86. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  12. Japan Road Association (JRA). Specification for Highway Bridges, Part. V: Seismic Design; 1996, Substructures. Available online: https://www.pwri.go.jp/eng/ujnr/joint/34/paper/53unjoh (accessed on 4 June 2021).
  13. Tokimatsu, K.; Yoshimi, Y. Empirical correlation of soil liquefaction based on SPT N-value and fines content. Soils Found. 1983, 23, 56–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Martin, G.R.; Finn, W.L.; Seed, H.B. Fundementals of liquefaction under cyclic loading. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1975, 101, 423–438. [Google Scholar]
  15. Byrne, P.M. A Cyclic Shear-Volume Coupling and Pore-Pressure Model for Sand. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, MO, USA, 11–15 March 1991; pp. 47–55. [Google Scholar]
  16. Itasca. FLAC: Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua; Itasca Consulting Group Inc.: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  17. Puebla, H.; Byrne, P.M.; Phillips, R. Analysis of CANLEX liquefaction embankments: Prototype and centrifuge models. Can. Geotech. J. 1997, 34, 641–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Beaty, M.; Byrne, P.M. An Effective Stress Model for Predicting Liquefaction Behaviour of Sand. Geotech. Earthq. Eng. Soil Dyn. III ASCE 1998, 75, 766–777. [Google Scholar]
  19. Beaty, M.H.; Byrne, P.M. UBCSAND Constitutive Model. Version 904aR; Itasca UDM: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2011; p. 69. [Google Scholar]
  20. Yang, D.; Naesgaard, E.; Byrne, P.M.; Adalier, K.; Abdoun, T. Numerical model verification and calibration of George Massey Tunnel using centrifuge models. Can. Geotech. J. 2004, 41, 921–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Chou, J.C. Centrifuge Modeling of the BART Transbay Tube and Numerical Simulation of Tunnels in Liquefying Ground. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  22. Bray, J.D.; Dashti, S. Liquefaction-induced building movements. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2014, 12, 1129–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ardeshiri-Lajimi, S.; Yazdani, M.; Assadi-Langroudi, A. A Study on the liquefaction risk in seismic design of foundations. Geomech. Eng. 2016, 11, 805–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Chou, J.C.; Lin, D.G. Incorporating ground motion effects into Sasaki and Tamura prediction equations of liquefaction-induced uplift of underground structures. Geomech. Eng. 2020, 22, 25–33. [Google Scholar]
  25. Seed, H.B.; Idriss, I.M. Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analysis; University of California: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1970; Rpt. No. UCB/EERC-70/10. [Google Scholar]
  26. Seed, H.B.; Wong, R.T.; Idriss, I.M.; Tokimatsu, K. Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils. J. Geotech. Eng. 1986, 112, 1016–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hardin, B.O.; Drnevich, V.P. Shear modulus and damping in soils: Measurement and parameter effects (Terzaghi Leture). J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 1972, 98, 603–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Beaty, M.H.; Perlea, V.G. Several observations on advanced analyses with liquefiable materials. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual USSD Conference and 21st Conference on Century Dam Design-Advances and Adaptations, San Degio, CA, USA, 11–15 April 2011; pp. 1369–1397. [Google Scholar]
  29. Seed, H.B.; Martin, P.P.; Lysmer, J. Pore-water pressure changes during soil liquefaction. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1976, 102, 323–346. [Google Scholar]
  30. Idriss, I.M.; Boulanger, R.W. Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes; Earthquake Engineering Research Institute: Oakland, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  31. Seed, H.B. Earthquake Resistant Design of Earth Dams. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Seismic Design of Embankments and Caverns, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 6–10 May 1983; pp. 41–64. [Google Scholar]
  32. Harder, L.F.; Boulanger, R.W. Application of Kσ and Kα correction factors. In Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 5–6 January 1996; Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Eds.; Technical Report NCEER-97-0022. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research: Buffalo, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 167–190. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Yield surface, flow rule, and directions of plastic potential increments of the UBCSAND model.
Figure 1. Yield surface, flow rule, and directions of plastic potential increments of the UBCSAND model.
Applsci 11 05283 g001
Figure 2. Liquefaction triggering curves of four simplified liquefaction analysis procedures.
Figure 2. Liquefaction triggering curves of four simplified liquefaction analysis procedures.
Applsci 11 05283 g002
Figure 3. Undrained cyclic DSS loading response for (N1)60cs = 10 of the JRA96 procedure with vertical effective consolidation stress σvc′ = 101 kPa and initial static shear stress = 0. (a) Finn model; (b) UBCSAND model.
Figure 3. Undrained cyclic DSS loading response for (N1)60cs = 10 of the JRA96 procedure with vertical effective consolidation stress σvc′ = 101 kPa and initial static shear stress = 0. (a) Finn model; (b) UBCSAND model.
Applsci 11 05283 g003
Figure 4. Accumulation of excess pore water pressure ratio and the associated cycle ratio of the Finn model. (a) HBF; (b) JRA96; (c) NCEER; (d) T-Y.
Figure 4. Accumulation of excess pore water pressure ratio and the associated cycle ratio of the Finn model. (a) HBF; (b) JRA96; (c) NCEER; (d) T-Y.
Applsci 11 05283 g004
Figure 5. Accumulation of excess pore water pressure ratio and associated cycle ratio of the UBCSAND model. (a) HBF; (b) JRA96; (c) NCEER; (d) T-Y.
Figure 5. Accumulation of excess pore water pressure ratio and associated cycle ratio of the UBCSAND model. (a) HBF; (b) JRA96; (c) NCEER; (d) T-Y.
Applsci 11 05283 g005
Figure 6. Weighting curves of four simplified liquefaction analysis procedures. (a) Finn model; (b) UBCSAND model.
Figure 6. Weighting curves of four simplified liquefaction analysis procedures. (a) Finn model; (b) UBCSAND model.
Applsci 11 05283 g006
Figure 7. Overburden stress effects on the CRR and comparison with curves in the NCEER procedure. (a) Finn model; (b) UBCSAND model (modified from Beaty and Byrne, 2011) [19].
Figure 7. Overburden stress effects on the CRR and comparison with curves in the NCEER procedure. (a) Finn model; (b) UBCSAND model (modified from Beaty and Byrne, 2011) [19].
Applsci 11 05283 g007
Figure 8. Static shear stress effects on the CRR and comparison with curves in the NCEER procedure. (a) Finn model; (b) model (modified from Beaty and Byrne, 2011) [19].
Figure 8. Static shear stress effects on the CRR and comparison with curves in the NCEER procedure. (a) Finn model; (b) model (modified from Beaty and Byrne, 2011) [19].
Applsci 11 05283 g008
Table 1. Input parameters of the Finn model with Byrne formulation in FLAC.
Table 1. Input parameters of the Finn model with Byrne formulation in FLAC.
Parameter 1MeaningParameter 1Meaning
frictionfriction angle, φff_c2 2C2 of Equation (1)
cohesioncohesion, Cff_c3 2C3, threshold shear strain—the shear strain below which volumetric strain will not be produced
dilationdilation angle, Ψ
shearshear modulus, G
bulkbulk modulus, B
ff_c1 2C1 of Equation (1)
1 Parameter title in the FLAC program. 2 C1 = 8.7 × ((N1)60cs) − 1.25; C1 × C2 = 0.4; C3 = 0.005% [15].
Table 2. Input parameters of the UBCSAND model in FLAC.
Table 2. Input parameters of the UBCSAND model in FLAC.
Parameter 1MeaningParameter 1Meaning
m_n160(N1)60csm_rffailure ratio, Rf
m_kgeelastic shear modulus number, KGem_hfac1 2accounts for the confining stress effect on the CRR
m_neelastic shear exponent, ne
m_kbeelastic bulk modulus number, KBem_hfac2 2shear modulus factor to modify the rate of pore pressure generation
m_meelastic bulk exponent, me
m_kgpplastic shear modulus number, KGpm_hfac3 2factor to modify post-liquefaction dilation response
m_npplastic shear exponent, np
m_phifpeak friction angle, φpeakm_hfac4 2factor to control the plastic shear strains after liquefaction and soil dilation
m_phicvconstant-volume friction angle, φcv
1 Parameter title in the FLAC program. 2 Model parameters of the UBCSAND model.
Table 3. Calibrated parameters of the UBCSAND model [19].
Table 3. Calibrated parameters of the UBCSAND model [19].
ParameterValue or RelationshipParameterValue or Relationship
KGe21.7 × 20 × ((N1)60cs)0.333φcv33°
KBe0.7KGeRf1.1((N1)60cs)−0.15 < 0.99
KGpKGe × ((N1)60cs)2 × 0.003 + 100m_hfac11a × (σ′/Pa)b
ne/me/np0.5/0.5/0.4m_hfac21
φpeakφcv + 0.1(N1)60cs + max(0, ((N1)60cs − 15)/5)m_hfac31
m_hfac41
1 a = 1.05 − 0.03(N1)60cs + 0.004((N1)60cs)2 − 0.000185((N1)60cs)3 + 2.92 × 10−6((N1)60cs)4; b = 1/(−0.424 − 0.259(N1)60cs + 0.00763 ((N1)60cs)2).
Table 4. Calibrated parameters of the Finn model–Byrne formulation in FLAC.
Table 4. Calibrated parameters of the Finn model–Byrne formulation in FLAC.
ParameterValue or RelationshipParameterValue or Relationship
φφcv + 0.1(N1)60csC18.7((N1)60cs)−1.25
C1 kPaC2C1 × C2 = C_Finn
Tcut0C30.005%
Ψ(φ − φcv)φcv33°
G (= Gmax)Equation (11)hysteretic modelγref = 0.06%
B1.33G
Table 5. Calibrated C_Finn.
Table 5. Calibrated C_Finn.
(N1)60csNCEERHBFJRA96T-Y
50.350.900.800.56
100.350.500.340.34
150.350.430.290.19
200.350.400.210.13
25N.A.N.A.0.110.10
N.A. = no answer.
Table 6. Calibrated KGp of the UBCSAND model.
Table 6. Calibrated KGp of the UBCSAND model.
Procedure(N1)60cs RangeRelationship 1
NCEER5~25KGp = 0.06X3 + 5.65X2 + 18.18X + 160
HBF5~25KGp = 0.79X3 − 8.71X2 + 66.85X + 350
JRA965~30KGp = −0.26X3 + 9.02X2 + 6.74X + 280
T-Y5~30KGp = −0.16X3 + 6.29X2 + 8.00X + 210
1 X = ((N1)60cs − 5).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chou, J.-C.; Yang, H.-T.; Lin, D.-G. Calibration of Finn Model and UBCSAND Model for Simplified Liquefaction Analysis Procedures. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5283. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/app11115283

AMA Style

Chou J-C, Yang H-T, Lin D-G. Calibration of Finn Model and UBCSAND Model for Simplified Liquefaction Analysis Procedures. Applied Sciences. 2021; 11(11):5283. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/app11115283

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chou, Jui-Ching, Hsueh-Tusng Yang, and Der-Guey Lin. 2021. "Calibration of Finn Model and UBCSAND Model for Simplified Liquefaction Analysis Procedures" Applied Sciences 11, no. 11: 5283. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/app11115283

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop