Prediction of LEAP-UCD-2017 Centrifuge Test Results Using Two Advanced Plasticity Sand Models
In accordance with the Liquefaction Experiments and Analysis Projects (LEAP)-UCD-2017 guidelines, two stress-dependent bounding surface constitutive models, Manzari-Dafalias and PM4Sand, were calibrated for Class-B prediction of centrifuge experiments of a sloped ground surface model of uniformly deposited Ottawa F-65 sand. Different calibration techniques and objectives were chosen for each material model. It was shown that both models were capable of simulating the behavior of cohesionless soils under liquefaction.
KeywordsLiquefaction Finite element analysis Slope Centrifuge test Dynamic excitation
Soil liquefaction induced by earthquakes can cause significant damage to adjacent structures and lead to considerable economic loss. The mechanism and effects of soil liquefaction have been studied extensively throughout the years. With the development of computational tools and advanced constitutive models which can capture complex soil behavior under various loading and drainage conditions, numerical modeling has become popular for predicting liquefaction-induced ground failure and deformations. For a numerical model to produce reasonable results, a comprehensive verification and validation study is necessary. Centrifuge tests, which can physically represent field conditions under earthquakes, have been used to provide benchmark studies for numerical analysis. VELACS (Verification of Liquefaction Analysis by Centrifuge Studies) (Arulanandan and Scott 1993) was a valuable initial attempt that identified the limitations of prevailing procedures. LEAP (Liquefaction Experiments and Analysis Projects) (Manzari et al. 2018) is a new effort to validate numerical models using centrifuge tests. In this work comparisons between experimental results and numerical simulations obtained using two different constitutive models, i.e., Manzari-Dafalias (Dafalias and Manzari 2004) and PM4Sand (Boulanger and Ziotopolou 2015), implemented in the OpenSees finite element framework are presented and discussed.
LEAP embodies a series of projects that attempt to extend understanding of the behavior of saturated granular soils subjected to seismic loading and at the same time provide high-quality experimental data sets for evaluation of constitutive models capable of reproducing liquefaction. Collectively these projects shed light on the performance of computational material models and numerical frameworks using benchmark centrifuge experiments representing different geotechnical settings. After an initial set of experiments in 2015 that resulted in the LEAP-GWU-2015 (Kutter et al. 2018) workshop, a second set of experiments was conducted at nine centrifuge facilities around the world, namely, Cambridge University (CU), Ehime University (Ehime), Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Kyoto University (KyU), Taiwan National Central University (NCU), the University of California Davis (UCD), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), French Institute of Science & Technology for Transportation, development and networks (IFSTTAR), and Zhejiang University (ZJU). Blind simulations were completed and submitted to the LEAP organizers, and a second workshop (LEAP-UCD-2017) was organized at Davis at the end of 2017.
21.3 FE Model Development
21.3.1 Boundary and Loading Conditions
The bottom boundary was fixed against vertical movement. The acceleration time history was applied to both vertical boundaries and the base of the model using the so-called UniformExcitation loading pattern in OpenSees. This was done to account for a rigid container. Pore pressures at the slope surface nodes were set to be zero during the analysis to ensure drainage and avoid generation of excess pore pressures at the surface. The free water on the slope was not modeled and effects of water sloshing (if any) were not considered. The soil was assumed to be always in contact with the container. A frequency-dependent Rayleigh damping was applied to compensate for small strain damping, which both MD and PM4Sand models lack in their formulation. The Rayleigh damping coefficients were chosen such that a 2% damping was obtained at 0.2 Hz and 20 Hz. The permeability was adopted from Ghofrani and Arduino (2018) and set to be 3.0 × 10 e−5m/s.
21.3.2 Material Constitutive Models
The bounding surface constitutive models developed by Dafalias and Manzari (2004) (referred to as MD henceforth for brevity) and Boulanger and Ziotopolou (2015) (PM4Sand) were used for comparison purposes. The latter uses the basic framework of the model introduced by Dafalias and Manzari improved to better capture well-known trends in liquefiable soils. Both these models follow critical state soil mechanics concepts and are capable of capturing stress-strain relationships for denser-than-critical and looser-than-critical sands under different drainage and loading conditions. In the MD model, the relationship with critical state soil mechanics is through the so-called state parameter, defined as ψ = e − ec by Been and Jefferies (1985). Introducing a fabric tensor that evolves with accumulated plastic strain, MD can control contraction and dilation during cyclic loading.
Boulanger and Ziotopolou (2015) improved the capabilities of the MD model by developing a sand plasticity model for earthquake engineering applications that is simpler to calibrate and better represents some important aspects of liquefiable soils. Instead of the state parameter, a relative state parameter index, defined as ξR = DR, cs − DR by Boulanger (2003), is adopted and used together with the empirical relationship for critical state line proposed by Bolton (1986). Although the number of model parameters for PM4Sand is larger than MD, the number of parameters that need to be calibrated is reduced with considerations added internally for the model to follow general soil behavior. By changing three primary input parameters, namely, shear modulus coefficient, G0; apparent relative density, Dr; and contraction rate parameter, hpo, the user can achieve reasonable approximations of desired behavior including pore pressure generation and dissipation, limiting strains, and cyclic mobility. Sending the “FirstCall” signal to the model allows users to initialize/reset secondary parameters (21 in total) and fabric history, while the “PostShake” signal allows the user to activate post-liquefaction functionality to improve simulation of reconsolidation strains. In the OpenSees analyses performed as part of this study, the “FirstCall” flag was called for material initialization just before switching to elastoplastic during gravity analysis. Obviously using the secondary parameters, the user can further fine-tune the response. Since its introduction, the PM4Sand model has drawn wide attention of geotechnical engineers and researchers due to its relatively easy calibration process and good agreement with field observations. More details on the model can be found at Boulanger and Ziotopolou (2015).
In order to predict the response of centrifuge tests, material parameters were calibrated using available laboratory test data. Several drained and undrained cyclic triaxial as well as cyclic simple shear tests were used for this purpose (El Ghoraiby et al. 2017, 2019). To calibrate the model parameters, the constitutive evolution equations were integrated independently of the FE framework using a constitutive driver (referred to as MixedDriver) implemented in C++ based on the formulation proposed by Alawaji et al. (1992). The method uses an implicit backward Euler scheme to integrate the constitutive equations. Using this framework, it is possible to test any constitutive model under different stress paths and drainage conditions and independent of any finite element restriction. Also MixedDriver allows for simulating stress-controlled, strain-controlled, and mixed (stress-strain)-controlled loading conditions.
Calibrated MD parameters and their values
The biggest advantage in using PM4Sand is that the calibration process is relatively straightforward. As mentioned before, only 3 primary parameters and 4 secondary parameters (out of 21) were used for calibration in this study. The remaining secondary parameters were kept at their default values, previously calibrated by Boulanger and Ziotopolou (2015) to represent typical soil behavior.
Calibrated PM4Sand parameters and their values
eo = 0.585
Modified to 65% for Class-B prediction
Shear modulus coefficient
Contraction rate parameter
Maximum void ratio
Modified to match 65% relative density for Class-B prediction
Minimum void ratio
Critical state effective friction angle
Controls the strain level at which fabric becomes important
21.4 Type B Prediction Results
By definition Type B predictions are done with limited amount of data from completed experiments. In this study, the calibrated single set of parameters for MD was used without modification. For PM4Sand, the set of parameters calibrated for the void ratio of 0.585 was chosen, and the primary parameter Dr was modified to 65%. The minimum void ratio achieved in the triaxial experiments was used in all cases, while the maximum void ratio was back calculated using the achieved void ratio in each centrifuge test to match the 65% relative density. In the following subsections, results and comparisons are presented in terms of acceleration response, pore pressure response, and surface displacement.
21.4.1 Acceleration Response
21.4.2 Pore Pressure Response
21.4.3 Surface Displacement Response
Two constitutive models based on critical state soil mechanics and bounding surface plasticity, MD and PM4Sand, were calibrated independently to simulate the behavior of Ottawa-F65 sand in accordance with the LEAP-UCD-2017 project guidelines. The calibrated models were then used to model the response of a boundary value problem using OpenSees. Besides using different material models, the same exact finite element model was used in all simulations. Type B predictions were obtained and simulations compared to recorded data from centrifuge experiments at several facilities around the world.
The MD model was calibrated for general soil behavior, and number of loading cycles to trigger liquefaction under small CSR was not prioritized. In the calibration of the PM4Sand model parameters, the number of cycles to liquefaction observed in the laboratory test results was emphasized and used as a calibration criterion.
Type B prediction results showed that although calibrated using different methods, both models were able to predict the results from centrifuge experiments, especially the acceleration response at the frequency of the input motion. The evolution of excess pore pressures predicted by PM4Sand and MD were comparable and showed the similarity and differences in calibration process. The amount of predicted horizontal displacement was in the range of the recorded displacements at each facility.
- Alawaji, H., Runesson, K., Sture, S., & Axelsson, K. (1992). Implicit integration in soil plasticity under mixed control for drained and undrained response. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 16(10), 737–756. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.1610161004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Arulanandan, K., & Scott, R. F. (1993). Verification of numerical procedures for the analysis of soil liquefaction problems. In International Conference on the Verification of Numerical Procedures for the Analysis of Soil Liquefaction Problems (Davis, California). Rotterdam: AA Balkema.Google Scholar
- Bastidas, A. M. P. (2016). Ottawa F-65 sand characterization. PhD thesis, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
- Been, K., & Jefferies, M. G. (1985). A state parameter for sands. Géotechnique, 35(2), 99–112.Google Scholar
- Boulanger, R. W., & Ziotopoulou, K. (2015). PM4Sand (Version 3): A sand plasticity model for earthquake engineering applications. Technical Report No. UCD/CGM-15/xx, Center for Geotechnical Modeling. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
- El Ghoraiby, M. A., Park, H., & Manzari, M. T. (2017). LEAP 2017: Soil characterization and element tests for Ottawa F65 sand. Washington, DC: The George Washington University.Google Scholar
- El Ghoraiby, M. A., Park, H., & Manzari, M. T. (2019). Physical and mechanical properties of Ottawa F65 sand. In B. Kutter et al. (Eds.), Model tests and numerical simulations of liquefaction and lateral spreading: LEAP-UCD-2017. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Kutter, B. L., Carey, T. J., Hashimoto, T., Zeghal, M., Abdoun, T., Kokkali, P., Madabhushi, G., et al. (2018). LEAP-Gwu-2015 Experiment specifications, results, and comparisons. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 113, 616–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.05.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Manzari, M. T., El Ghoraiby, M., Kutter, B. L., Zeghal, M., Abdoun, T., Arduino, P., Armstrong, R. J., et al. (2018). Liquefaction experiment and analysis projects (Leap): Summary of observations from the planning phase. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 113, 714–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.05.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McKenna, F. T. (1997). Object-Oriented Finite Element Programming: Frameworks for Analysis, Algorithms and Parallel Computing. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
- Ramirez, J., Barrero, A., Chen, L., Dashti, S., Ghofrani, A., Taiebat, M., & Arduino, P. (2018). Site response in a layered liquefiable deposit: Evaluation of different numerical tools and methodologies with centrifuge experimental results (accepted). Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental, 144, 10.Google Scholar
- Vasko, A. (2015). An investigation into the behavior of Ottawa sand through monotonic and cyclic shear tests. MS Thesis, The George Washington University.Google Scholar
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.