An alternative empirical function to predict air–water mixture bulk modulus for numerical modeling of liquefaction behavior of induced partially saturated sands


During the past decades, various soil improvement techniques have been developed to mitigate liquefaction hazards. One of the most newfound techniques is induced partial saturation (IPS). The capability of this method in liquefaction mitigation has been demonstrated through experimental and analytical research studies. This technique's main objective is to reduce the degree of saturation to convert fully saturated liquefiable sands into a partially saturated state and consequently reduce the potential of liquefaction occurrence. For numerical modeling of partially saturated sands' liquefaction behavior, the sand's main parameter that should be carefully determined is air–water mixture bulk modulus. A numerical model of a cyclic simple shear liquefaction box (CSSLB) on a shaking table was built to study the liquefaction response of induced partially saturated sands in the presented research. Primarily, a conventional equation was employed to predict air–water mixture bulk modulus of induced partially saturated sands, and the results of numerical liquefaction analysis were not much in accordance with those obtained from shaking table experiments. Then, experimental test results obtained from CSSLB were used to propose an empirical function to predict air–water mixture bulk modulus of induced partially saturated sands. It was shown that the new empirical function could predict the effect of entrapped air in excess pore water pressure generated in induced partially saturated sands during cyclic loading. Finally, this empirical function was validated with experimental results obtained from a laminar box on a shaking table and a centrifuge test. The results showed that the proposed empirical function could be considered as an alternative function in the numerical analysis of liquefaction response of induced partially saturated sands.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Modified from Kumar et al. (2019)

Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Modified from Toki et al. (1986)

Fig. 16
Fig. 17


  1. Bian H, Shahrour I (2009) Numerical model for unsaturated sandy soils under cyclic loading: application to liquefaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(2):237–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bishop AW (1954) The use of pore-pressure coefficients in practice. Géotechnique 4(4):148–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bishop AW, Eldlin AKG (1950) Undrained triaxial tests on saturated sands and their significance in the general theory of shear strength. Geotechnique 2:13–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boulanger RW, Ziotopoulou K (2015) PM4Sand (Version 3) A sand plasticity model for earthquake engineering applications. Report No. UCD/CGM-15/01, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, University of California, Davis, CA, p 112

  5. Byrne PM (1991) A cyclic shear-volume coupling and pore pressure model for sand. In: Proceedings: second international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, March 11–15, St. Louis, Missouri, pp 47–55

  6. Detournay E, Cheng A (1993) Fundamentals of poroelasticity. Compreh Rock Eng 2(2):113–171

    Google Scholar 

  7. Eseller-Bayat EE (2009) Seismic response and prevention of liquefaction failure of sands partially saturated through introduction of gas bubbles. Phd Dissertation, Northeastern University, Boston, MA

  8. Eseller-Bayat E, Gokyer S, Yegian M, Ortakci E, Alshawabkeh A (2013a) Design and application of simple shear liquefaction Box. Geotech Test J 36(3):322–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Eseller-Bayat E, Yegian M, Alshawabkeh A, Gokyer S (2013) Liquefaction response of partially saturated sands. I: experimental results. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Finn WDL, Byrne PM, Martin GR (1976) Seismic Response and Liquefaction of Sands. J Geotechn Eng Div ASCE 102:841–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fredlund DG (1976) Density and compressibility characteristics of air–water mixtures. Can Geotech J 13(4):386–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fredlund DG, Rahardjo H (1993) Soil mechanics for unsaturated soils. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gao Q, Liu Z, Yu B (2013) Computer simulations on the effects of desaturation on soil liquefaction resistance.

  14. Hasan JU, Fredlund DG (1980) Pore pressure parameters for unsaturated soils. Can Geotech J 17(3):395–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc (2012) FLAC-Fast Lagrangian analysis of continua in 3 dimensions. Itasca, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jablonská J (2014) Compressibility of the fluid. EPJ Web of Conf.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kokusho T (2017) Innovative earthquake soil dynamics, Chap. 4. CRC publishers, London, p 9

  18. Koning H (1963) Some observations on the modulus of compressibility of water. In: Proceedings of the European confernce on SMFE, pp 33–36

  19. Kuhlemeyer RL, Lysmer J (1973) Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation problems. J Soil Mech Found Div 99 (Tech Report)

  20. Kumar R, Horikoshi K, Takahashi A (2019) Centrifuge testing to investigate effects of partial saturation on the response of shallow foundation in liquefiable ground under strong sequential ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 125:105728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Marasini NP, Okamura M (2015) Numerical simulation of centrifuge tests to evaluate the performance of desaturation by air injection on liquefiable foundation soil of light structures. Soils Found 55(6):1388–1399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Martin GR, Lew M (1999) Recommended procedures for implementation of DMG Special publication 117 guidelines for analyzing and mitigating liquefaction in California

  23. Martin GR, Finn WL, Seed HB (1975) Fundementals of liquefaction under cyclic loading. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 101 (ASCE# 11231 Proceeding)

  24. Meyerhof GG (1956) Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soil. J Soil Mech Found Eng 82(1):866-1-866–19

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nababan FRP (2015) Development and evaluation of induced partial saturation (IPS), delivery method and its implementation in large laboratory specimens and in the field. Ph.D. Dissertation, Northeastern University, Boston, MA

  26. Rau G, Chaney RC (1988) Triaxial testing of marine sediments with high gas contents. In: Advanced triaxial testing of soil and rock. ASTM International

  27. Salemi H, Iglauer S, Rezagholilou A, Sarmadivaleh M (2018) Laboratory measurement of Biot’s coefficient and pore pressure influence on poroelastic rock behaviour. APPEA J 58:182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Report No. UCB/EERC-70/10, p. 48

  29. Seid-Karbasi MS, Byrne PM (2006) Effects of partial saturation on liquefiable ground response. In: DeGroot DJ, DeJong JT, Frost D, Baise LG (eds) Proceedings of GeoCongress, geotechnical engineering in the information technology age, held in Atlanta, GA, February 26–March 2, ASCE, Reston, VA, Paper No. 11803

  30. Skempton AW (1954) The pore-pressure coefficients A and B. Géotechnique 4(4):143–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Toki S, Tatsuoka F, Miura S, Yoshimi Y, Yasuda S, Makihara Y (1986) Cyclic undrained triaxial strength of sand by a cooperative test program. Soils Found 26(3):117–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Toloza Barría P (2018) Liquefaction modelling using the PM4S and soil constitutive model in PLAXIS 2D. M.Sc. Dissertation, Delft University of Technology

  33. Xu H, Xie K, Wang W (2011) Compressibility of pore fluid of unsaturated soils and pore pressure parameter. In: International conference on electric technology and civil engineering, ICETCE 2011—Proceedings.

  34. Yang J, Savidis S, Roemer M (2004) Evaluating liquefaction strength of partially saturated sand. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 130(9):975–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ye JH, Wang G (2016) Numerical simulation of the seismic liquefaction mechanism in an offshore loosely deposited seabed. Bull Eng Geol Environ 75(3):1183–1197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Yegian MK, Eseller-Bayat E, Alshawabkeh A, Ali S (2007) Induced-partial saturation for liquefaction mitigation: experimental investigation. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 133:372–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors would like to acknowledge that this project is financially supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, TÜBİTAK (Grant No. 213M367).

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Ece Eseller-Bayat.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seyedi-Viand, S.M., Eseller-Bayat, E.E. An alternative empirical function to predict air–water mixture bulk modulus for numerical modeling of liquefaction behavior of induced partially saturated sands. Bull Earthquake Eng 19, 1987–2011 (2021).

Download citation


  • Induced partially saturated sand
  • Air–water mixture bulk modulus
  • Liquefaction
  • Cyclic simple shear
  • Numerical modeling