Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 16, Issue 9, pp 3627–3652 | Cite as

Development of a simplified model for pore water pressure build-up induced by cyclic loading

  • Anna Chiaradonna
  • Giuseppe Tropeano
  • Anna d’Onofrio
  • Francesco Silvestri
Original Research Paper


In this paper the formulation of a simplified model for predicting pore water pressure build-up under seismic loading is updated and applied to different soils. The model is directly based on the results of cyclic laboratory tests and it is based on the damage parameter concept, avoiding any arbitrary equivalence criterion necessary to compare the seismic demand to the cyclic strength of liquefiable soils. The model is suitable to be implemented into non-linear coupled seismic response analyses since it operates in the time domain. The analytical formulation is fully described and the calibration and the physical meaning of the model parameters are analysed in detail. Simple applications show the practical usefulness of the model with respect to other literature approaches.


Pore water pressure Liquefaction Cyclic resistance Damage parameter 



This work was carried out as part of WP1 ‘Seismic response analysis and liquefaction’ of the sub-project on ‘Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering’, in the framework of the research programme funded by Italian Civil Protection through the ReLUIS Consortium.


  1. AGI (2005) Aspetti geotecnici nella progettazione in zone sismiche. Guidelines of the Italian Geotechnical Society. Associazione Geotecnica Italiana (in Italian)Google Scholar
  2. Amini F, Qi GZ (2000) Liquefaction testing of stratified silty sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 126(3):208–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Annaki M, Lee KL (1977) Equivalent uniform cycle concept for soil dynamics. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 103(GT6):549–564Google Scholar
  4. Bažant ZP, Krizek RJ (1976) Endochronic constitutive law for liquefaction of sands. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 102(EM2):225–238Google Scholar
  5. Biondi G, Cascone E, Di Filippo G (2012) Affidabilità di alcune correlazioni empiriche per la stime del numero di cicli di carico equivalente. Ital Geotech J 2:11–41 (in Italian) Google Scholar
  6. Booker JR, Rahman MS, Seed HB (1976) GADFLEA—A computer program for the analysis of pore pressure generation and dissipation during cyclic or earthquake loading. Earthquake Engineering Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  7. Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2006) Liquefaction susceptibility criteria for silts and clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 132(11):1413–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2014) CPT and SPT liquefaction triggering procedures. Report No UCD/GCM-14/01, University of California at Davis, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Burbank M, Weaver T, Lewis R, Williams T, Williams B, Crawford R (2013) Geotechnical tests of sands following bioinduced calcite precipitation catalyzed by indigenous bacteria. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 139(6):928–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carraro J, Bandini P, Salgado R (2003) Liquefaction resistance of clean and nonplastic silty sands based on cone penetration resistance. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 129(11):965–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Castro G (1975) Liquefaction and cyclic mobility of saturated sands. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 101(GT6):551–569Google Scholar
  12. Chiaradonna A (2016) Development and assessment of a numerical model per non-linear coupled analysis on seismic response of liquefiable soils. Dissertation, University of Napoli ‘Federico II’Google Scholar
  13. Clough GW, Iwabuchi J, Rad NS, Kuppusamy T (1989) Influence of cementation on liquefaction of sands. J Geotech Eng 115(8):1102–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Alba P, Seed HB, Chan CK (1976) Sand liquefaction in large-scale: simple shear tests. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 102(GT9):909–927Google Scholar
  15. Derakhshandi M, Rathje EM, Hazirbaba K, Mirhosseini SM (2008) The effect of plastic fines on the pore pressure generation characteristics of saturated sands. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28:376–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dobry R, Pierce WG, Dyvik R, Thomas GE, Ladd RS (1985) Pore pressure model for cyclic straining of sand. Civil Engineering Department, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, TroyGoogle Scholar
  17. El Hosri MS, Biarez J, Hicher PY (1984) Liquefaction characteristic of silty clay. In: Proceedings of the 8th world conference on earthquake engineering, Prentice-Hall Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ, vol 3, pp 277–284Google Scholar
  18. El Mohtar CS, Bobet A, Drnevich VP, Johnston CT, Santagata MC (2014) Pore pressure generation in sand with bentonite: from small strains to liquefaction. Geotechnique 64(2):108–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Finn WDL, Bhatia S (1982) Prediction of seismic porewater pressures. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Stockholm, Norway, vol 3, pp 201–206Google Scholar
  20. Flora A, Lirer S (2013) Small strain shear modulus of undisturbed gravelly soils during undrained cyclic triaxial tests. Geotech Geol Eng 31(4):1107–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. (2014) Dynamic modeling with QUAKE/W. An engineering methodology. GEO-SLOPE International Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Accessed 23 Mar 2018
  22. Green RA, Terri GA (2005) Number of equivalent cycles concept for liquefaction evaluations—revisited. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 131(4):477–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Green RA, Mitchell JK, Polito CP (2000) An energy-based pore pressure generation model for cohesionless soils. in: John Booker memorial symposium developments in theoretical geomechanics, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp 383–390Google Scholar
  24. Hashash YMA, Phillips C, Groholski DR (2010) Recent advances in non-linear site response analysis. In: The 5th international conference in recent advances in geotechnical eartqhuake engineering and soil dynamics, San Diego, CA. CD-Vol OSP 4Google Scholar
  25. Ishihara K, Yasuda S, Nagase H (1996) Soil characteristics and ground damage. Spec Issue Soil Found 36:109–118. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ivšić T (2006) A model for presentation of seismic pore water pressures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Khashila M, Hussien MN, Karray M, Chekired M (2017) Use of pore pressure build-up as damage metric in computationof equivalent number of uniform strain cycles. Can Geotech J. Google Scholar
  28. Koester JP, Sharp MK, Hynes ME (1999) Technical bases for Regulatory Guide for soil liquefaction. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NRC Job Code W6246Google Scholar
  29. Kondner RL, Zelasko JS (1963) Hyperbolic stress-strain formulation of sands. In: Proceedings of the 2nd panamerican conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Associação Brasileira de Mecânica dos Solos, vol 1, pp 289–324Google Scholar
  30. Kramer SL, Asl BA, Ozener P, Sideras SS (2015) Effects of liquefaction on ground surface motions. In: Sakr M, Ansal A (eds) Perspective on earthquake geotechnical engineering. Springer, Cham, pp 285–309Google Scholar
  31. Liu AH, Stewart JP, Abrahamson NA, Moriwaki Y (2001) Equivalent number of uniform stress cycles for soil liquefaction analysis. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 127:1017–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liyanathirana DS, Poulos HG (2002) Numerical simulation of soil liquefaction due to earthquake loading. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22:511–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mandokhail SJ, Park D, Yoo JK (2016) Development of normalized liquefaction resistance curve for clean sands. Bull Earthq Eng 15(3):907–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Matasovic N, Vucetic M (1993) Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands. J Geotech Eng ASCE 119(11):1805–1822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Montoya-Noguera S, Lopez-Caballero F (2014) Effect of coupling excess pore pressure and deformation on nonlinear seismic soil response. Acta Geotech 11(1):191–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nakamichi M, Sato K (2013) A method of suppressing liquefaction using a solidification material and tension stiffeners. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  37. Papadopoulou A, Tika T (2008) The effect of fines on critical state and liquefaction resistance characteristics of non-plastic silty sands. Soils Found 48(5):713–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Park T, Ahn JK (2013) Accumulated stress based model for prediction of residual pore pressure. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  39. Park T, Park D, Ahn JK (2015) Pore pressure model based on accumulated stress. Bull Earthq Eng 13(7):1913–1926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pekcan O, Çetin KO, Bakir BS (2004) Cyclic Behavior of Adapazari Silt and Clay Mixtures. In Proceeding of the 3rd international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering—3ICEGE, Berkeley, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  41. Polito CP (1999) The effects of non-plastic and plastic fines on the liquefaction of sandy soils. PhD Dissertation in Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, USAGoogle Scholar
  42. Polito CP, Green RA, Lee J (2008) Pore pressure generation models for sands and silty soils subjected to cyclic loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 134(10):1490–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Porcino D, Diano V (2016) Laboratory study on pore pressure generation and liquefaction of low-plasticity silty sandy soils during the 2012 earthquake in Italy. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE. Google Scholar
  44. Porcino D, Marcianò V, Granata R (2015) Cyclic liquefaction behaviour of a moderately cemented grouted sand under repeated loading. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 79:36–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sandoval EA, Pando MA (2012) Experimental assessment of the liquefaction resistance of calcareous biogenous sands. Earth Sci Res J 16(1):55–63Google Scholar
  46. Seed HB, Idriss IM, Makdisi F, Banerjee N (1975) Representation of irregular stress time histories by equivalent unifrom stress series in liquefaction analyses. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  47. Seed HB, Martin PP, Lysmer J (1976) Pore-water pressure changes during soil liquefaction. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 102(GT4):323–346Google Scholar
  48. Silver ML, Park TK (1976) Liquefaction potential evaluated from cyclic strain-controlled properties tests on sands. Soils Found 16(3):51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Swamy KR, Boominathan A, Rajagopal K (2010) Undrained response and liquefaction behavior of non-plastic silty sands under cyclic loading. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soils dynamics, San Diego, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  50. Sze HY, Yang J (2014) Failure modes of sand in undrained cyclic loading: impact of sample preparation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 140(1):152–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thevanayagam S, Shenthan T, Mohan S, Liang J (2002) Undrained fragility of clean sands, silty sands and sandy silts. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128(10):849–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tonni L, Gottardi G, Amoroso S, Bardotti R, Bonzi L, Chiaradonna A, d’Onofrio A, Fioravante V, Ghinelli A, Giretti D, Lanzo G, Madiai C, Marchi M, Martelli L, Monaco P, Porcino D, Razzano R, Rosselli S, Severi P, Silvestri F, Simeoni L, Vannucchi G, Aversa S (2015) Interpreting the deformation phenomena triggered by the 2012 Emilia seismic sequence on the Canale Diversivo di Burana banks. Ital Geotech J 2:28–58 (in Italian) Google Scholar
  53. Troncoso JH, Verdugo R (1985) Silt content and dynamic behaviour of tailing sands. In: 10th International soil mechanics and foundation engineering, vol 3, pp 1311–1314, San Francisco, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  54. Tropeano G, Chiaradonna A, d’Onofrio A, Silvestri F (2016) An innovative computer code for 1D seismic response analysis including shear strength of soils. Géotechnique 66(2):95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tropeano G, Chiaradonna A, d’Onofrio A, Silvestri F (2018) Numerical model for non-linear coupled analysis of seismic response of liquefiable soils. Computers and Geotechnics (submitted)Google Scholar
  56. USBR (2015) Design Standards No. 13: Embankment Dam. Chapter 13: Seismic Analysis and Design. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Accessed 13 May 2017
  57. Valanis KC (1971) A theory of viscoplasticity without a yield surface. Arch Mech (Archiwum Mechaniki Stosowanej) 23(4):517–555Google Scholar
  58. Viana Da Fonseca A, Soares M, Fourie AB (2015) Cyclic DSS tests for the evaluation of stress densification effects in liquefaction assessment. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 75:98–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vucetic M (1994) Cyclic threshold shear strains in soils. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 120(12):2208–2228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Xenaki V, Athanasopoulos G (2003) Liquefaction resistance of sand-silt mixtures: an experimental investigation of the effect of fines. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23(3):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Napoli Federico IINaplesItaly
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Environmental Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity of CagliariCagliariItaly

Personalised recommendations