Numerical assessment of the performance of different constitutive models used to predict liquefiable soil behavior

Abstract

Liquefaction has caused severe damages to structures such as excessive settlements, tilting, lateral spreading etc., all over the world during many past earthquakes. Hence, the efficient prediction of liquefiable soil behavior is crucial for liquefaction-induced hazard evaluation of existing structures and the design of new structures in seismically active regions. In this study, a series of nonlinear effective stress analyses are carried out using the DeepSoil and OpenSees opensource software with Modified Kondner–Zelasko (MKZ) and Pressure Dependent Multi Yield02 (PDMY02) constitutive models to evaluate their capabilities in terms of predicting liquefiable soil behavior. The performance of the models has been evaluated by comparing the results between the numerical predictions and a centrifuge study from literature in terms of excess pore water pressures, acceleration-time histories, spectral accelerations, lateral displacements and maximum profile responses at specific depths. The results clearly illustrate that the excess pore water pressure predictions from nonlinear analyses are reasonably close to centrifuge measurements, but the accelerations and lateral displacements are slightly different. It is also observed that dissimilarities in the predictions of the numerical simulations are more obvious for OpenSees simulations with respect to DeepSoil ones.

Keywords

• DeepSoil
• Liquefaction
• MKZ Model
• OpenSees
• PDMY02 Model

References

1. 1. Kramer, S. and A. Elgamal, Modeling soil liquefaction hazards for performance based earthquake engineering. Report 2001/13, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. University of California, Berkeley, 2001. p.165.
2. 2. Kramer, S.L., Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics Series. 1996, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson 653.
3. 3. Popescu, R. and J.H. Prevost, Centrifuge validation of a numerical model for dynamic soil liquefaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1993. 12(2): p. 73-90.
4. 4. Byrne, P.M., Park, S.S., Beaty, M., Sharp, M., Gonzalez, L. and Abdoun, T., Numerical modeling of liquefaction and comparison with centrifuge tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2004. 41(2): p. 193-211.
5. 5. Taiebat, M., H. Shahir, and A. Pak, Study of pore pressure variation during liquefaction using two constitutive models for sand. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2007. 27(1): p. 60-72.
6. 6. Ramirez, J., et al., Site response in a layered liquefiable deposit: evaluation of different numerical tools and methodologies with centrifuge experimental results. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2018. 144(10): p. 1-22.
7. 7. Demir, S. and P. Özener, Estimation of Liquefaction with UBC3D-PLM Model: A Centrifuge Test Example. Teknik Dergi, 2019. 30(5): p. 9421-9442.
8. 8. Prevost, J.H., A simple plasticity theory for frictional cohesionless soils. International Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1985. 4(1): p. 9-17.

9. 9. Matasović, N. and M. Vucetic, Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1993. 119(11): p. 1805-1822.
10. 10. Beaty, M. and P.M. Byrne, An Effective Stress Model for Pedicting Liquefaction Behaviour of Sand. in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III. 1998. ASCE. pp. 766-777.
11. 11. Yang, Z., A. Elgamal, and E. Parra, Computational model for cyclic mobility and associated shear deformation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2003. 129(12): p. 1119-1127.
12. 12. Dafalias, Y.F. and M.T. Manzari, Simple plasticity sand model accounting for fabric change effects. Journal of Engineering mechanics, 2004. 130(6): p. 622-634.
13. 13. Petalas, A. and V. Galavi, Plaxis Liquefaction Model UBC3DPLM. Plaxis Report, 2013.
14. 14. Ziotopoulou, K. and R. Boulanger, Calibration and implementation of a sand plasticity plane-strain model for earthquake engineering applications. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2013. 53: p. 268-280.
15. 15. Khosravifar, A., Elgamal, A., Lu, J. and Li, J., A 3D model for earthquake-induced liquefaction triggering and post-liquefaction response. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2018. 110: p. 43-52.
16. 16. Yang, M., M. Taiebat, and Y. Dafalias, A New Sand Constitutive Model for Pre-and Post-liquefaction Stages. in International Conference of the International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics. IACMAG 2021. 129:p. 718-726.
17. 17. Taboada, V. and R. Dobry, Experimental results of model no. p. 1 at RPI, in Arulanandan K, Scott RF, editors. Verification of numerical procedures for the analysis of soil liquefaction problems. 1993, Rotterdam, A.A. Balkema. p. 3-18.
18. 18. Hashash, Y.M., et al., DEEPSOIL 7.0, User Manual. Urbana, IL, Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 2016. p. 170.
19. 19. Matasovic, N., Seismic response of composite horizontally-layered soil deposits. 1993, University of California. p. 452.
20. 20. Phillips, C. and Y.M. Hashash, Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2009. 29(7): p. 1143-1158.
21. 21. Darendeli, M.B., Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves, in Civil Engineering. 2001, University of Texas at Austin. p. 362.
22. 22. Jaky, J., The coefficient of earth pressure at rest. J. of the Society of Hungarian Architects and Engineers, 1944: p. 355-358.
23. 23. Meyerhof, G.G., Compaction of sands and bearing capacity of piles. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 1959. 126(1): p. 1292-1322.
24. 24. Hashash, Y., C. Phillips, and D.R. Groholski, Recent advances in non-linear site response analysis. in 5th Int. Conf. in Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. 2010. Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO. p. 1-22.
25. 25. Arulmoli, K., Muraleetharan, K. K., Hossain, M. M. and Fruth, L. S., VELACS: Verification of liquefaction analyses by centrifuge studies, laboratory testing program. Soil data report, 1992.
26. 26. Vucetic, M. and R. Dobry, Pore pressure build-up and liquefaction at level sandy sites during earthquakes. 1986: Research Rep. No. CE-86-3. Troy, NY: Dept. of Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. p. 616.
27. 27. Dobry, R., Pierce, W.G., Dyvik, R., Thomas, G.E. and Ladd, R.S., Pore pressure model for cyclic straining of sand, in Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York. 1985: Research Report 1985-06.
28. 28. Mei, X., S.M. Olson, and Y.M. Hashash, Empirical porewater pressure generation model parameters in 1-D seismic site response analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2018. 114: p. 563-567.
29. 29. Gibson, A.D., Physical scale modeling of geotechnical structures at one-G. 1997, California Institute of Technology. p. 397.
30. 30. Mazzoni, S., McKenna F, Scott M.H, and Fenves G.L., Open system for earthquake engineering simulation user command-language manual—OpenSees version 2.0. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA, 2009. p. 451.
31. 31. Kuhlemeyer, R.L. and J. Lysmer, Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation problems. Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundations Div, 1973. 99(5): p.421-427.
32. 32. Parra, E., Numerical modeling of liquefaction and lateral ground deformation including cyclic mobility and dilative behavior in soil systems. 1996, Department of Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
33. 33. Yang, Z., J. Lu, and A. Elgamal, OpenSees soil models and solid-fluid fully coupled elements user’s manual. 2008. p. 1-25.
34. 34. Khosravifar, A., Analysis and design for inelastic structural response of extended pile shaft foundations in laterally spreading ground during earthquakes. 2012, University of California, Davis. p. 310.
35. 35. Lu, J., A. Elgamal, and Z. Yang, OpenSeesPL: 3D lateral pile-ground interaction user manual (Beta 1.0). Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, 2011. p. 147.