Geomechanics and Engineering

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Unidirectional cyclic shearing of sands: Evaluation of three different constitutive models

  • Oscar H. Moreno-Torres (Department of Civil Engineering, Universidad Nacional de Colombia) ;
  • Cristhian Mendoza-Bolanos (Department of Civil Engineering, Universidad Nacional de Colombia) ;
  • Andres Salas-Montoya (Department of Civil Engineering, Universidad Nacional de Colombia)
  • Received : 2023.01.27
  • Accepted : 2023.11.06
  • Published : 2023.11.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Advanced nonlinear effective stress constitutive models are started to be frequently used in one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) site response analysis for assessment of porewater generation and liquefaction potential in soft soil deposits. The emphasis of this research is on the assessment of the implementation of this category of models at the element stage. Initially, the performance of a coupled porewater pressure (PWP) and constitutive models were evaluated employing a catalogue of 40 unidirectional cyclic simple shear tests with a variety of relative densities between 35% and 80% and effective vertical stresses between 40 and 80 kPa. The authors evaluated three coupled constitutive models (PDMY02, PM4SAND and PDMY03) using cyclic direct simple shear tests and for decide input parameters used in the model, procedures are recommended. The ability of the coupled model to capture dilation as strength is valuable because the studied models reasonably capture the cyclic performance noted in the experiments and should be utilized to conduct effective stress-based 1D and 2D site response analysis. Sandy soils may become softer and liquefy during earthquakes as a result of pore-water pressure (PWP) development, which may have an impact on seismic design and site response. The tested constitutive models are mathematically coupled with a cyclic strain-based PWP generation model and can capture small-strain stiffness and large-strain shear strength. Results show that there are minor discrepancies between measured and computed excess PWP ratios, indicating that the tested constitutive models provide reasonable estimations of PWP increase during cyclic shear (ru) and the banana shape is reproduced in a proper way indicating that dilation and shear- strain behavior is well captured by the models.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The authors want to thank the Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia Sede Santa Marta, Universidad del Magdalena, and Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Manizales for providing the conditions required by authors to complete this study.

References

  1. Andrus, R. and Stokoe, K. (2000), "Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity", J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 126(11), 1015-1025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:11(1015).
  2. Beaty, M. and Byrne, P.M. (1998), "An effective stress model for predicting liquefaction behavior of sand", In Vol. 1 of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III, 766-777, Reston, VA.
  3. Beaty, M.H. and Byrne, P.M. (2011), UBCSAND constitutive model version 904aR. UBCSAND Constitutive Model on Itasca UDM Website. Available from http://www.itascaudm.com/media/download/UBCSand/UBCSAND_UDM_Documentation.pdf (accessed 15 Jun 2012).
  4. Beyzaei, C.Z., Bray, J.D., Cubrinovski, M., Riemer, M., Stringer, M.E., Jacka, M. and Wentz, F.J. (2015), "Liquefaction resistance of silty soils at the Riccarton Road site, Christchurch, New Zealand", Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, November.
  5. Boulanger, R.W., Chan, C.K., Seed, H.B., Seed, R.B. and Sousa, J.B. (1993), "A low-compliance bidirectional cyclic simple shear apparatus", Geotech. Test. J., 16(1), 36-45. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10265J.
  6. Boulanger, R.W. and Ziotopoulou, K. (2012), PM4Sand (Version 2.0): A Sand Plasticity Model for Earthquake Engineering Applications, University of California, Berkeley, California.
  7. Boulanger, R.W. and Ziotopoulou, K. (2017), PM4Sand (Version 3.1): A Sand Plasticity Model for Earthquake Engineering Applications, Report No EERC-75-26, University of California, Berkeley, California.
  8. Bulent-Sonmezer, Y. (2019), "Energy-based evaluation of liquefaction potential of uniform sands", Geomech. Eng., 17(2), 145-156. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2019.17.2.145.
  9. Bulent-Sonmezer, Y. (2019), "Investigation of the liquefaction potential of fiber-reinforced sand", Geomech. Eng., 18(5), 503-513. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2019.18.5.503.
  10. Bulent-Sonmezer, Y. (2020), "Investigation of the effect of grain size on liquefaction potential of sands", Geomech. Eng., 20(3), 243-254. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2020.20.3.243.
  11. Byrne, P. (1991), "A cyclic shear-volume coupling and pore-pressure model for sand", Proceedings of the 2nd Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 47-55, Alexandria, VA.
  12. Carey, T. and Kutter, B. (2017), "Comparison of liquefaction constitutive models for a hypothetical sand", Geotechnical Special Publication GSP 281, 389-398. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784480489.039.
  13. Chen, L. and Arduino, P. (2018), PM4Sand material. Retrieved from: https://opensees.berkeley.edu/wiki/index.php/PM4Sand_Material.
  14. Chiaradonna, A., Tropeano, G., d'Onofrio, A. and Silvestri, F. (2018), "Development of a simplified model for pore water pressure build-up induced by cyclic loading", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 16, 3627-3652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0354-4
  15. Dafalias, M.T. and Manzari, Y.F. (2004), "Simple plasticity sand model accounting for fabric change effects", J. Eng. Mech., 130(6), 622-634. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2004)130:6(622).
  16. Dobry, R., Pierce, W.G., Dyvik, R., Thomas, G.E. and Ladd, R.S. (1985), Pore pressure model for cyclic straining of sand. Research Report. Civil Engineering Department. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY. 58 leaves.
  17. Elgamal, A., Parra, E., Yang, Z., Dobry, R. and Zeghal, M. (1998), Liquefaction constitutive model. In Proc., Int. Workshop on the Physics and Mechanics of Soil Liquefaction, (Eds., P. Lade, Baltimore, A.A. Balkema).
  18. Elgamal, A., Yang, Z. and Parra, E. (2002), "Computational modeling of cyclic mobility and post-liquefaction site response", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 22(2), 259-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(02)00022-2.
  19. Finn, W.D.L. (1986), TARA-3: A program to compute the seismic response of 2-D embankments and soil - structure interaction systems to seismic loadings. Vancouver, BC, Canada, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of British Columbia.
  20. Ghofrani, A., McGann, C. and Arduino, P. (2016), "Influence of modeling decisions on three-dimensional finite element analysis of two existing highway bridges subjected to lateral spreading. transportation research record", J. Transport. Res. Board, 2592, 143-150. https://doi.org/10.3141/2592-16.
  21. Green, R.A. (2001), Energy-based evaluation and remediation of liquefiable Soil. Civil and Environmental Engineering. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 392 leaves.
  22. Green, R.A., Mitchell, J.K. and Polito, C.P. (2000), An energy-based excess pore pressure generation model for cohesionless soils. Proceedings of the John Booker Memorial Symposium, Sidney Australia. A.A Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
  23. Hashash, Y.M.A., et al. (2017), DEEPSOIL v7.0. User manual and tutorial, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.
  24. Iai, O. and Ozutsumi, O. (2005), "Yield and cyclic behaviour of a strain space multiple mechanism model for granular materials", Int. J. Numer. Anal. Method. Geomech., 29, 417-442. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.420.
  25. Ivsic, T. (2006), "A model for presentation of seismic pore water pressures", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 26, 191-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.11.025.
  26. Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2008), Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Monograph MNO-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 261 pp.
  27. Jefferies, M.G. (1993), "NorSand: a simple critical state model for sand", Geotechnique, 43, 91-103. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1993.43.1.91.
  28. Khashila, M., Hussien, M.N., Karray, M. and Chekired, M. (2021), "Liquefaction resistance from cyclic simple and triaxial shearing: a comparative study", Acta Geotech., 16, 1735-1753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-020-01104-6.
  29. Kammerer, A.M., Seed, R.B., Wu, J., Riemer, M.F. and Pestana, J.M. (2004), "Pore pressure development in liquefiable soils under bi-directional loading conditions", Proceedings of the 11th Int. Conf. on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering.
  30. Kramer, S. and Arduino, P. (1999), "Constitutive modeling of cyclic mobility and implications for site response", Proceedings of the 2nd Int. Conf. Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, (Ed., P.S. Seco e Pinto and A.A. Balkema), Rotterdam, Netherlands.
  31. Khosravifar, A., Elgamal, A., Lu, J. and Li, J. (2018), "A 3D model for earthquake-induced liquefaction triggering and post-liquefaction response", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 110, 43-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.04.008.
  32. Lambe, T.W. and Whitman, R.V. (1969), Soil mechanics. New York, New York, Wiley & Sons.
  33. Lin, L. (1989), "A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility", Biometrics, 45, 255-268. https://doi.org/10.2307/2532051.
  34. Mandokhail, A., Nawaz, S., Mohammad, K., Ehsanullah, M., Ali, N. and Ghulamullah K. (2017), "2D numerical modeling of the cyclic simple shear test using opensees loading", J. Appl. Emerg. Sci., 7(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.36785/jaes.71214.
  35. Matasovic, N. and Ordonez, G. (2007), D-MOD 2000 A computer program package for seismic response analysis of horizontally layered soil deposits, earthfill dams and solid waste landfills, User's Manual.
  36. Matsuda, H., Nhan, T.T. and Sato, H. (2016), "Estimation of multidirectional cyclic shear-induced pore water pressure on clays with a wide range of plasticity indices", Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation Engineering, Ottawa, Canada.
  37. McBride, G.B. (2005), A proposal for strength-of-agreement criteria for Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient. NIWA Client Report: HAM2005-062, Hamilton, New Zealand.
  38. Mei, X., Olson S.M., and Hashash Y.M.A. (2019), "Evaluation of a simplified soil constitutive model considering implied strength and pore-water pressure generation for one-dimensional (1D) seismic site response", Can. Geotech. J., 57(7), 974-991. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2018-0893.
  39. Mendoza-Bolanos, C.C., Salas-Montoya, A., Moreno-Torres, O. H. and Villegas-Andrade, A.I. (2023), "Site response analysis using true coupled constitutive models for liquefaction triggering", Earthq. Struct., 25(1), 27-41. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2023.25.1.027.
  40. Moreno-Torres, O., Olson, S.M. and Hashash, Y.M.A. (2010), "A simplified coupled soil-pore water pressure generation for use in site response analysis", Proceedings of the Geoflorida 2010 Conference (ASCE) GSP 199, Advances in Analysis, Modeling and Design, West Palm Beach. https://doi.org/10.1061/41095(365)314.
  41. Moreno-Torres, O., Salas-Montoya, A. and Vasquez-Varela, L. (2018), "An Introduction of a quasi-coupled hyperbolic stress-strain constitutive model", Ingenieria, investigacion y tecnologia, 19(2), 171-181. https://doi.org/10.22201/fi.25940732e.2018.19n2.015.
  42. Moreno-Torres, O., Chang-Nieto, G. and Salas-Montoya, A. (2018), "Evaluation of coupled porewater pressure and stress-strain constitutive model in granular soils", Dyna, 85(204), 248. https://doi.org/10.15446/dyna.v85n204.59676.
  43. Nong, Z.Z., Park, S.S. and Lee, D.U. (2021), "Comparison of sand liquefaction in cyclic triaxial and simple shear test", Soils Found., 61, 1071-1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2021.05.002.
  44. Park, D. and Ahn, J.K. (2013), "Accumulated stress based model for prediction of residual pore pressure", Proceedings of the 18th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 2013, Paris, France.
  45. Parra - Bastidas, A. (2016), Ottawa F-65 sand characterization. University of California, Davis.
  46. Polito, C.P., Green, R.A. and Lee, J. (2008), "Pore pressure generation models for sands and silty soils subjected to cyclic loading", J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 134(10), 1490-1500. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:10(1490).
  47. Prevost, J.H. (1985), "A simple plasticity theory for frictional cohesionless soils", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 4(1), 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1016 /0261-7277(85)90030-0. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-7277(85)90030-0
  48. Ramirez, J., Barrero, A., Chen, L., Dashti, S., Ghofrani, A., Taiebat, M. and Arduino, P. (2018), "Site response in a layered liquefiable deposit: Evaluation of different numerical tools and methodologies with centrifuge experimental results", J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 144, 10, 04018073-1-22. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001947.
  49. Rutherford, C.J. (2012), Development of a multi-directional direct simple shear testing device for characterization of the cyclic shear response of marine clays, Doctoral thesis, Texas A&M University.
  50. Seed, H.B. and Lee, K.L. (1966), "Liquefaction of saturated sands during cyclic loading", J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. ASCE, 92(6), 105-134. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0000913.
  51. Seed, H.B., Martin, P.P. and Lysmer, J. (1975), The generation and dissipation of pore water pressure during soil liquefaction. Report No EERC-75-26. University of California, Berkeley, California.
  52. Scott, R.F. (1963), Principles of soil mechanics. New York, Addison-Wesley Pub.
  53. Sukkarak, R., Tanapalungkorn, W., Likitlersuang, S. and Ueda, K. (2021), "Liquefaction analysis of sandy soil during strong earthquake in Northern Thailand", Soils Found., 61, 1302-1318. https://doi.org/10.1016 /0261-7277(85)90030-0. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-7277(85)90030-0
  54. Viana da Fonseca, A., Molina-Gomez, F. and Ferreira, C. (2023), "Liquefaction resistance of TP-Lisbon sand: a critical state interpretation using in situ and laboratory testing", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 21, 767-790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01577-8.
  55. Vucetic, M. (1986), Pore pressure buildup and liquefaction at level sandy sites during earthquakes. Civil Engineering. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 616 leaves.
  56. Wang, R., Zhang, J.M. and Wang, G. (2014), "A unified plasticity model for large post-liquefaction shear deformation of sand", Comput. Geotech., 59, 54-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.02.008.
  57. Wichtmann, T., Fuentes, W. and Triantafyllidis, T. (2019), "Inspection of three sophisticated constitutive models based on monotonic and cyclic tests on fine sand: Hypoplasticity vs. Sanisand vs. ISA", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 124, 172-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.05.001.
  58. Wu, J., Seed, R.B. and Pestana, J.M. (2002), Liquefaction triggering and post liquefaction deformations of Monterey 0/30 sand under uni-directional cyclic simple shear loading. Berkeley, College of Engineering University of California Berkeley.
  59. Yang, Z., Elgamal, A. and Parra, E. (2003), "Computational model for cyclic mobility and associated shear deformation", J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 129(11), 1119-1127. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241 (2003)129:12(1119).
  60. Yang, Z., Lu, J. and Elgamal, A. (2008), OpenSees soil models and solid-fluid fully coupled elements. User's Manual. Vol. 1.
  61. Ziotopoulou, K. and Boulanger, R.W. (2015), "Validation protocols for constitutive modeling of liquefaction", Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand.