REPORT NO.

UCD/CGM-12/01 CENTER FOR GEOTECHNICAL MODELING

PM4SAND (VERSION 2):

A SAND PLASTICITY MODEL FOR
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
APPLICATIONS

BY

R. W. BOULANGER

K. ZIOTOPOULOU

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS

May 2012
 PM4Sand (Version 2):
A Sand Plasticity Model for Earthquake Engineering Applications

by

Ross W. Boulanger

and

Katerina Ziotopoulou

Report No. UCD/CGM-12/01

Center for Geotechnical Modeling

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of California
Davis, California

May 2012
First Edition (PM4Sand Version 1) June 2010

Second Edition (PM4Sand Version 2) May 2012

First Revision July 2012

ABSTRACT

The sand plasticity model PM4Sand (version 2) for geotechnical earthquake engineering
applications is presented. The model follows the basic framework of the stress-ratio controlled,
critical state compatible, bounding surface plasticity model for sand presented by Dafalias and
Manzari (2004). Modifications to the model were developed and implemented by Boulanger (2010,
version 1) and further herein (version 2) to improve its ability to approximate the stress-strain
responses important to geotechnical earthquake engineering applications; in essence, the model was
calibrated at the equation level to provide for better approximation of the trends observed across a set
of experimentally- and case history-based design correlations. These constitutive modifications
included: revising the fabric formation/destruction to depend on plastic shear rather than plastic
volumetric strains; adding fabric history and cumulative fabric formation terms; modifying the plastic
modulus relationship and making it dependent on fabric; modifying the dilatancy relationships to
provide more distinct control of volumetric contraction versus expansion behavior; providing a
constraint on the dilatancy during volumetric expansion so that it is consistent with Bolton’s (1986)
dilatancy relationship; modifying the elastic modulus relationship to include dependence on stress
ratio and fabric history; modifying the logic for tracking previous initial back-stress ratios (i.e.,
loading history effect); recasting the critical state framework to be in terms of a relative state
parameter index; simplifying the formulation by restraining it to plane strain without Lode angle
dependency for the bounding and dilation surfaces; and providing default values for all but three
primary input parameters. Version 2 of the model includes an improved numerical implementation
and coding as a user defined material in a dynamic link library (DLL) for use with the commercial
program FLAC (Itasca 2011). The numerical implementation and DLL module are described. The
behavior of the model is illustrated by simulations of element loading tests covering a broad range of
conditions, including drained and undrained, cyclic and monotonic loading under a range of initial
confining and shear stress conditions, which can then be compared to typical design relationships.
The model is shown to provide reasonable approximations of desired behaviors and to be relatively
easy to calibrate.

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.  INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 

2.  MODEL FORMULATION ............................................................................................................................ 15 

2.1 Basic stress and strain terms ..........................................................................................................15 

2.2 Critical state ...................................................................................................................................16 

2.3 Bounding, dilation, and critical surfaces........................................................................................17 

2.4 Yield surface and image back-stress ratio tensors .........................................................................18 

2.5 Stress reversal and initial back-stress ratio tensors ........................................................................19 

2.6 Elastic strains and moduli ..............................................................................................................20 

2.7 Plastic components without fabric effects .....................................................................................21 

2.8 Fabric effects ..................................................................................................................................27 

2.9 Summary of Constitutive Equations ..............................................................................................33 

3.  MODEL IMPLEMENTATION...................................................................................................................... 45 

3.1 Aspects of FLAC's Numerical Approach .......................................................................................45 

3.2. Implementation of PM4Sand in FLAC ..........................................................................................46 

3.3 Effect of Time Step Size on Element Responses ............................................................................48 

3.4 Effect of Time Step Size on System Responses .............................................................................49 

3.5 DLL Module ...................................................................................................................................49 

4.  MODEL INPUT PARAMETERS AND RESPONSES ................................................................................. 59 

4.1 Model input parameters .................................................................................................................59 

4.2 Example calibration and model responses for a range of element loading conditions ..................66 

5.  CONCLUDING REMARKS .......................................................................................................................... 92 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 93 

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 93 

ii
 PM4Sand (Version 2):
A Sand Plasticity Model for Earthquake Engineering Applications

1. INTRODUCTION

Nonlinear deformation analyses for problems involving liquefaction are increasingly common in
earthquake engineering practice. Constitutive models for sand that have been used in practice range
from relatively simplified, uncoupled cycle-counting models to more complex plasticity models (e.g.,
Wang et al. 1990, Cubrinovski and Ishihara 1998, Dawson et al. 2001, Papadimitriou et al. 2001,
Yang et al. 2003, Byrne et al. 2004, Dafalias and Manzari 2004). Each constitutive model has certain
advantages and limitations that can be illustrated for potential users by documents showing the
constitutive response of the model in element tests that cover a broad range of the conditions that may
be important to various applications in practice (e.g., Beaty 2009).

The information available for calibration of constitutive models in design practice most
commonly include basic classification index tests (e.g., grain size distributions), penetration
resistances (e.g., SPT or CPT), and shear wave velocity (Vs) measurements. More detailed laboratory
tests, such as triaxial or direct simple shear tests, are almost never available due to the problems with
overcoming sampling disturbance effects and the challenge of identifying representative samples
from highly heterogeneous deposits.

Constitutive models for geotechnical earthquake engineering applications must be able to

approximate a broad mix of conditions in the field. For example, a single geotechnical structure like
the schematic earth dam shown in Figure 1.1 can have strata or zones of sand ranging from very loose
to dense under a wide range of confining stresses, initial static shear stresses (e.g., at different points
beneath the slope), drainage conditions (e.g., above and below the water table), and loading
conditions (e.g., various levels of shaking). The engineering effort is greatly reduced if the
constitutive model can reasonably approximate the predicted stress-strain behaviors under all these
different conditions. If the model cannot approximate the trends across all these conditions, then extra
engineering effort is required in deciding what behaviors should be prioritized in the calibration
process, and sometimes by the need to repeat the calibrations for the effects of different initial stress
conditions within the same geotechnical structure.

The PM4Sand (version 2) plasticity model for geotechnical earthquake engineering applications is
presented herein. The PM4Sand model follows the basic framework of the stress-ratio controlled,
critical state compatible, bounding surface plasticity model for sand initially presented by Manzari
and Dafalias (1997) and later extended by Dafalias and Manzari (2004). Modifications to the
Dafalias-Manzari model were developed and implemented by Boulanger (2010, version 1) and
further herein (version 2) to improve its ability to approximate engineering design relationships that
are used to estimate the stress-strain behaviors that are important to predicting liquefaction-induced
ground deformations during earthquakes. The current version also incorporates an improved
numerical implementation and coding as a dynamic link library (DLL) for use with the commercial
program FLAC (Itasca 2011).

1
 It is unlikely that any one model can be developed or calibrated to simultaneously fit a full set of
applicable design correlations for monotonic and cyclic, drained and undrained behaviors of sand, in
part because the various design correlations are not necessarily physically consistent with each other;
e.g., they may include a mix of laboratory test-based and case history-based relationships, or they
have been empirically derived from laboratory data sets for different sands. Nonetheless, it is
desirable that a model, after calibration to the design relationship that is of primary importance to a
specific project, be able to produce behaviors that are reasonably consistent with the general
magnitudes and trends in other applicable design correlations or typical experimental data.

Stress-strain behaviors of sand that are most commonly the focus in design are listed below, along
with reference to a figure showing an example design correlation or typical experimental test result.

 The cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) against triggering of liquefaction, which is commonly estimated
based on SPT and CPT penetration resistances with case-history-based liquefaction correlations
(e.g., Figure 1.2). The CRR is the cyclic stress ratio (e.g., CSR = cyc/'vc, with cyc = horizontal
cyclic shear stress, 'vc=vertical consolidation stress) that is required to trigger liquefaction in a
specified number of equivalent uniform loading cycles.
 The response under the irregular cyclic loading histories produced by earthquakes, which is
approximately represented by the relationship between CRR and number of equivalent uniform
loading cycles (e.g., Figure 1.). This aspect of behavior also directly relates to the magnitude
scaling factors (MSF) that are used with liquefaction correlations in practice.
 The dependence of CRR on effective confining stresses and sustained static shear stresses. These
aspects of behavior are represented by the K (Figure 1.) and K (Figure 1.5) correction factors,
respectively, that are used with liquefaction correlations in practice.
 The accumulation of shear strains after triggering of liquefaction. Evaluations of reasonable
behavior are often based on comparisons to laboratory tests results for similar soils in the
literature (e.g., Figure 1.6).
 The strength loss as a consequence of liquefaction, which may involve explicitly modeling
phenomena such as void redistribution or empirically accounting for it through case history-based
residual strength correlations (e.g., Figure 1.7).
 The small-strain shear modulus which can be obtained through in-situ shear wave velocity
measurements.
 The shear modulus reduction and equivalent damping ratio relationships prior to triggering of
liquefaction. These aspects of behavior are commonly estimated using empirical correlations
derived from laboratory test results for similar soils in the literature (e.g., Figure 1.8).
 Drained monotonic shear strengths and stress-strain behavior (e.g., Figure 1.9). Peak friction
angles may be estimated using relationships such as Bolton's (1986) relative dilatancy index, IR
(Figure 1.10) or correlations to SPT and CPT penetration resistances.
 Undrained monotonic shear strengths and stress-strain behavior (e.g., Figure 1.11), which may be
estimated using correlations to SPT and CPT penetration resistances.
 The volumetric strains during drained cyclic loading (Figure 1.12 and Figure 1.13) or due to
reconsolidation following triggering of liquefaction (e.g., Figure 1.14), both of which may be
estimated using empirical correlations derived from laboratory test results for similar soils in the

2
 literature.
The constitutive model described herein was developed for earthquake engineering applications,
with specific goals being: (1) the ability to reasonably approximate empirical correlations used in
practice, and (2) an ability to be calibrated within a reasonable amount of engineering effort. In
essence, the approach taken was to calibrate the constitutive model at the equation level, such that the
functional forms for the various constitutive relationships were chosen for their ability to approximate
the important trends embodied in the extensive laboratory-based and case history-based empirical
correlations that are commonly used in practice.

The organization of this report is structured as follows.

 Section 2 of this report contains a description of the model formulation.

 Section 3 contains a description of the model's implementation as a user-defined material in a
dynamic link library for use in the commercial program FLAC (Itasca 2011).
 Section 4 of this report contains a summary of the model input parameters, guidance on model
parameter selections, and then illustrations of the model responses to a broad range of
elemental loading conditions.
 Section5 contains summary remarks regarding the model and its use in practice.

Revisions to PM4Sand in version 2 include: a new numerical implementation for working with the
subzoning procedure and mixed discretization scheme of FLAC; implementation as a dynamic link
library (DLL); clarifications and corrections to the manual; minor corrections to the constitutive
algorithm; and re-calibration of the model, resulting in changes to the default values for some
secondary parameters. The simulations presented in this report were prepared using the DLL module
modelpm4s003.dll compiled on May 15, 2012; note that the compilation date is included in the
properties of the dll file.

This first revision to the manual clarifies details of some input parameters and their default
initializations. The DLL module compiled on July 12, 2012 corrected bugs associated with restoring
saved files and use of pure triangles in some situations. The simulations presented in this report were
all repeated and found to be unaffected by these changes.

3
 (N1 )60 = 25 (N1 )60 = 25

(N1 )60 = 15 (N1 )60 = 10

Figure 1.1. Schematic cross-section for an earth dam.

Figure 1.2. Correlations for cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) from SPT data
(after Idriss and Boulanger 2010).

4
 0.4
(a)

Cyclic Stress Ratio CSR = cyc / 'vc

Shaking Table tests conducted by
De Alba et al (1976):
Relative Density = 90%
0.3
Relative Density = 82%
Relative Density = 68%
Relative Density = 54%

Fit with
0.2
b = 0.25
= 0.21

= 0.21
0.1
= 0.23

Initial confining pressure = 8 psi (55 kPa)

0
1 10 100
Number of Cycles to cause initial liquefaction, N
2

(b)
Yoshimi et al (1984):
Cyclic TX on frozen samples
Cyclic Stress Ratio CSR = d / 2'o

1 of dense Niigata sand

0.8

0.6

Silver et al. (1976): b = 0.34

0.4 Cyclic TX on moist tamped
Monterey sand ( DR=60% )

0.2 b = 0.22

Toki et al. (1986):

0.1 Cyclic TX on air pluviated
Toyoura sand ( DR=50% )
0.08 b = 0.10
0.06

0.04
0.1 1 10 100
Number of Cycles, N, to reach 5% D.A. strain

Figure 1.3. Relationships between cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) and number of equivalent uniform
loading cycles for undrained loading of reconstituted and undisturbed samples of clean sand
(from Ziotopoulou and Boulanger 2012).

5
 1.4

1.2
(N1 )60 = 5 , qc1N = 57
1

0.8

K 0.6
(N1 )60 = 15 , qc1N = 105
0.4
(N1 )60 = 25 , qc1N = 152
0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Vertical Effective Stress, 'vc / Patm

Figure 1.4. K factor describing the effect that effective overburden stress has on cyclic resistance
ratio of sands (from Idriss and Boulanger 2008).

2.0
Cyclic triaxial tests with DR =70%:
'3c /Pa =2 & 16 (Vaid & Chern 1985)
R =
-0.41
-0.49
1.5

-0.36
K

1.0
-0.31

-0.16
0.5
0.05
Simple shear tests with 'vc /Pa = 2:
DR=35 & 55% (Boulanger et al. 1991)
DR=50 & 68% (Vaid & Finn 1971)
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Figure 1.5. K factor describing the effect that sustained static shear stress ratio (=s/'vc) has on
cyclic resistance ratio of sands (Boulanger 2003a).

6
 0.4 0.4 Sacramento river sand
B ACU cyclic triaxial
0.2 DR=57%, '3c=200 kPa
B
q/2p'c

0.2

q/2p'c
0 A
A
-0.2 0

1 A -0.2
0.75 B
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
0.5 Axial strain, a (%)
ru

0.25

0 0.4
4
B
0.2
B

q/2p'c
2
a (%)

0 0.0
A
-2 A
-0.2
-4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Cycle number p'/p'c

Figure 1.6. Undrained cyclic triaxial test on clean sand (test from Boulanger and Truman 1996; from
Idriss and Boulanger 2008).

7
Figure 1.7. Empirical relationship for estimating residual strength of liquefied sands based on case
histories (Boulanger and Idriss 2011).

8
 1

Shear modulus ratio, G/Gmax

0.8 Depth =
500-1000 ft
250-500 ft
0.6 120-250 ft
50-120 ft
20-50 ft
0.4 0-20 ft

0.2 EPRI (1993) recommendations

for sand at different depths:

0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain amplitude (%)
40
Equivalent damping ratio (%)

30 Depth =
500-1000 ft
250-500 ft
120-250 ft
20 50-120 ft
20-50 ft
0-20 ft

10

0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain amplitude (%)

Figure 1.8. Shear modulus reduction and equivalent damping ratio relationship for sands, as
recommended by EPRI (1993).

9
 6 6
Lee and Seed (1967): Lee and Seed (1967):
5.5 Sacramento River Sand 5.5 Sacramento River Sand
1.0 Initial DR = 100% Initial DR = 38%
5 (emax=1.03, emin=0.61) 5
Principal stress ratio, '1 /'3

Principal stress ratio, '1 /'3

4.5 2.9 4.5
10
4 19 4

3.5 29 3.5 1.0 1.9

39 4.4
3 3 12
116 19
2.5 2.5 39
'3c /pa
116
2 2
'3c /pa
1.5 1.5

1 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
15 15
1.0
10 10
'3c /pa
Volumetric strain (%)

Volumetric strain (%)

5 2.9 5
10 1.0
0 0 1.9
19 4.4

-5 29 -5
39 12
19
-10 -10
116 39
-15 -15 116
'3c /pa

-20 -20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Axial strain (%) (b) Axial strain (%)

Figure 1.9. Drained triaxial compression tests on loose and dense sand specimens under a range of
effective confining stresses (after Lee and Seed 1967; from Idriss and Boulanger 2008).

10
 16
IR = DR (Q - ln p')-R
Q=10, R=1
75 % DR = 100 %

DR = 80 %
12
'max - 'crit (deg)

'max - 'crit = 3IR

DR = 50 %
8 50 %

4
25 %

0
10 100 1000 10000 100000

Mean Effective Stress p' ( kPa )

Figure 1.10. Triaxial test data for sands with initial relative densities in the vicinity of 80% or 50%
failing at various mean effective stresses. The difference of peak friction angle from the critical
friction angle is related to the relative dilatancy index (IR) (after Bolton 1986).

11
 1.2 1.2
DR = 16% DR = 16% Ishihara (1993):
Toyoura sand,

Deviator stress, q (atm)

Deviator stress, q (atm)
1 1 Critical ICU-TC
'3c  1.0 atm
state
0.8 0.8
0.6 atm
0.6 0.6
0.2 atm

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.1 atm 0.2

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Axial strain, a (%) Mean principal effective stress, p' (atm)
(a)

20 DR = 38% 20 DR = 38%

Deviator stress, q (atm)

Deviator stress, q (atm)

'3c  30 atm Critical

15 15 state
20 atm

10 10
10 atm

5 1 atm 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Axial strain, a (%) Mean principal effective stress, p' (atm)
(b)

35 35 Critical
'3c  30 atm DR = 64%
state
DR = 64%
Deviator stress, q (atm)
Deviator stress, q (atm)

30 30

25 25

20 20 atm 20
10 atm
15 15
1.0 atm
10 10

5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Axial strain, a (%) Mean principal effective stress, p' (atm)
(c)

Figure 1.11. Undrained triaxial compression tests on very loose and loose sand specimens under a
range of effective consolidation stresses (after Ishihara 1993; from Idriss and Boulanger 2008).

12
 0.58
Youd (1972): Drained simple shear,
Ottawa sand, emax = 0.752, emin = 0.484,
0.56 'vc = 48 kPa
Cycle 1
C A
B E
0.54 D

5
0.52

10

Void ratio
0.50
20

0.48
50

0.46 100

200

0.44
500
1000
0.42 10000

0.40
-0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8
Shear displacement (mm)

Figure 1.12. Drained cyclic simple shear test showing densification of a sand specimen with
successive cycles of loading (after Youd 1972; from Idriss and Boulanger 2008).

Figure 1.13. Volumetric strains in drained cyclic direct simple shear tests on clean sands (Duku et al.
2008): (a) Results from 16 sands at a relative density of about 60% with an overburden stress of 1.0
atm, and (b) Comparison of trends with earlier relationships by Silver and Seed (1971) for sands at
relative densities of 45, 60, and 80%.

13
Figure 1.14. Relationship between post-liquefaction volumetric strain and the maximum shear strain
induced during undrained cyclic loading of clean sand (after Ishihara and Yoshimine 1992; redrawn
in Idriss and Boulanger 2008).

14
2. MODEL FORMULATION

The sand plasticity model presented herein follows the basic framework of the stress-ratio
controlled, critical state compatible, bounding-surface plasticity model for sand presented by Dafalias
and Manzari (2004). The Dafalias and Manzari (2004) model extended the previous work by
Manzari and Dafalias (1997) by adding a fabric-dilatancy related tensor quantity to account for the
effect of fabric changes during loading. The fabric-dilatancy related tensor was used to
macroscopically model the effect that microscopically-observed changes in sand fabric during plastic
dilation have on the contractive response upon reversal of loading direction. Dafalias and Manzari
(2004) provide a detailed description of the motivation for the model framework, beginning with a
triaxial formulation that simplifies its presentation and then followed by a multi-axial formulation.
The model proposed herein is presented in its multi-axial formulation, along with the original
framework of the Dafalias-Manzari model for comparison.

2.1 Basic stress and strain terms

The basic stress and strain terms for the proposed model are as follows. The model is based on
effective stresses, with the conventional prime symbol dropped from the stress terms for convenience
because all stresses are effective for the model. The stresses are represented by the tensor , the
principal effective stresses 1, 2, and 3, the mean effective stress p, the deviatoric stress tensor s,
and the deviatoric stress ratio tensor r. The present implementation was further simplified by casting
the various equations and relationships in terms of the in-plane stresses only. This limits the present
implementation to plane-strain applications and is not correct for general cases, but it has the
advantage of simplifying the implementation and improving computational speed by reducing the
number of operations. Expanding the implementation to include the general case should not affect the
general features of the model. Consequently, the relationships between the various stress terms can be
summarized as follows:

  xx  xy 
σ 
  xy  yy  (1)

 xx  yy
p (2)
2

 s xx s xy    xx  p  xy 
s  σ  pI    
 s xy s yy    xy  yy  p  (3)

15
   xx  p  xy
s  rxx rxy   p p 

r  
p  rxy ryy    xy  yy  p  (4)
 
 p p 

Note that the deviatoric stress and deviatoric stress ratio tensors are symmetric with rxx=-ryy and
sxx=-syy (meaning a zero trace), and that I is the identity matrix.
The model strains are represented by a tensor , which can be separated into the volumetric strain
v and the deviatoric strain tensor e. The volumetric strain is,

v   xx   yy
(5)

and the deviatoric strain tensor is,

  
  xx  v  xy 
 3
eε v I 
3   v  (6)
 xy  yy  
 3

The deviatoric and volumetric strain terms are separated into elastic and plastic components,

de  de e  de p
(7)

d  v  d  ve  d  vp
(8)

where
e e  elastic deviatoric strain tensor
e p  plastic deviatoric strain tensor
 ve  elastic volumetric strain
 p
v  plastic volumetric strain

2.2 Critical state

Dafalias and Manzari (2004), based on findings in Li and Wang (1998), used a power relationship
to approximate the curving of the critical state line (Schofield and Wroth 1968) that occurs over a
broad range of confining stresses,

16
 m
p 
ecs  eo    cs 
 pA  (9)

where pcs = mean stress at critical state, ecs = critical state void ratio, and eo , , and m are parameters
controlling the position and shape of the critical state line. The state of the sand was then described
using the state parameter (Been and Jefferies 1985), which is the difference between the current void
ratio (e) and the critical state void ratio (ecs) at the same mean effective stress (pcs).

The model proposed herein instead uses the relative state parameter index (R) as presented in
Boulanger (2003a) and shown in Figure 2.1(a). The relative state parameter (Konrad 1988) is the state
parameter normalized by the difference between the maximum void ratio (emax) and minimum void
ratio (emin) values that are used to define relative density (DR). The relative state parameter "index" is
just the relative state parameter defined using an empirical relationship for the critical state line.
Boulanger (2003a) used Bolton's (1986) dilatancy relationship to define the empirical critical state
line and thus arrived at,

R  DR ,cs  DR
(10)

R
DR ,cs 
 p
Q  ln 100  (11)
 pA 

where DR,cs = relative density at critical state for the current mean effective stress. The parameters Q
and R were shown by Bolton (1986) to be about 10 and 1.0, respectively, for quartzitic sands. Critical
state lines using the above expression with Q values of 9 and 10 with R values of 1.0 and 1.5 are
shown in Figure 2.1.(b).

2.3 Bounding, dilation, and critical surfaces

The model incorporates bounding, dilation, and critical surfaces following the form of Dafalias
and Manzari (2004). The present model simplifies the surfaces by removing the Lode angle
dependency (e.g., friction angles are the same for compression or extension loading) that was
included in the Dafalias-Manzari model, such that the bounding (Mb) and dilation (Md) ratios can be
related to the critical stress (M) ratio by the following simpler expressions.

M b  M  exp  nbR 
(12)

M d  M  exp  nd R 
(13)

17
where nb and nd are parameters determining the values of Mb and Md, respectively. For the present
implementation, the mean normal stress p is taken as the average of the in-plane normal stresses, q is
the difference in the major and minor principal in-plane stresses, and the relationship for M is
therefore reduced to

M  2  sin  cv 
(14)

where cv is the constant volume or critical state effective friction angle. The three surfaces can, for
the simplifying assumptions described above, be conveniently visualized as linear lines on a q-p plot
(where q=1-3) as shown in Figure 2.2 or as circular surfaces on a stress-ratio graph of ryy versus rxy
as shown in Figure 2.3.

As the model is sheared toward critical state (R = 0), the values of Mb and Md will both approach
the value of M. Thus the bounding and dilation surfaces move together during shearing until they
coincide with the critical state surface when the soil has reached critical state.

The above functional form for the bounding stress ratio controls the relationship between peak
friction angle and relative state, which is consistent with the forms and data previously proposed by
Been and Jefferies (1985) and Konrad (1986). The data from those studies were primarily for sands
that were dense of critical, and the above relationship can reasonable fit those data. The few data
points for loose-of-critical sands show that the peak friction angles (presumably determined at the
limit of strains possible within the laboratory tests) were only slightly smaller than the critical state
values, such that extending the above relationships to loose-of-critical sands may tend to
underestimate the peak friction angles. Consequently, the present model allows nb and nd to be
different for loose-of-critical and dense-of-critical states for the same sand.

2.4 Yield surface and image back-stress ratio tensors

The yield surface and image back-stress ratio tensor () follow those of the Dafalias-Manzari
model, although their final form is considerably simplified by the prior assumption of removing any
Lode angle dependency. The yield surface is a small cone in stress space, and is defined in stress
terms by the following expression:

   
1
f   s  p : s  p  2
 1 pm  0 (15)
2

The back-stress ratio tensor  defines the center of the yield surface, and the parameter m defines the
diameter of the cone in terms of stress ratio. The yield function can be rewritten to emphasize the role
of stress ratio terms as follows,

f r    : r     1 m
2 (16)

The yield function can then be visualized as related to the distance between the stress ratio r and the
back-stress ratio , as illustrated in Figure 2.3.

18
 The bounding surface formulation now requires that bounding and dilation stress ratio tensors be
defined. Dafalias and Manzari (2004) showed that it is more convenient to track back-stress ratios
and to similarly define bounding and dilation surfaces in terms of back-stress ratios. An image back-
stress ratio tensor for the bounding surface (b) is defined as,

αb  1 M b  m  n
2  (17)

where the tensor n is normal to the yield surface. An image back-stress ratio tensor for the dilation
surface (d) is similarly defined as,

αd  1 M d  m  n
2  (18)

The computation of constitutive responses can now be more conveniently expressed in terms of back-
stress ratios rather than in terms of stress ratios, as noted by Dafalias and Manzari (2004).

2.5 Stress reversal and initial back-stress ratio tensors

The bounding surface formulation, as described in Dafalias (1986) and adopted by Dafalias and
Manzari (2004), keeps track of the initial back-stress ratio (in) and uses it in the computation of the
plastic modulus. This tracking of one instance in loading history is essentially a first-order method for
tracking loading history. A reversal in loading direction is then identified, following traditional
bounding surface practice, whenever

 α  αin  :n  0
(19)

A reversal causes the current stress ratio to become the initial stress ratio for subsequent loading.
Small cycles of load reversal can reset the initial stress ratio and cause the plastic modulus to increase
accordingly, in which case the stress-strain response becomes overly stiff after a small load reversal.
This is a well-known problem in bounding surface formulations for which various approaches offer
different advantages and disadvantages.

The model proposed herein tracks both an initial back-stress ratio and a previous initial back-
stress ratio (inp), as illustrated in Figure 2.4. When a reversal occurs, the previous initial back-stress
ratio is updated to the initial back stress ratio, and the initial back-stress ratio is updated to the current
back-stress ratio, subject to the following constraint. For loading in a positive direction, the initial
back-stress ratio is assigned the greater of: (a) the minimum value that the initial back-stress ratio had
ever been assigned and (b) zero. For loading in a negative direction, the logic is reversed. In this
manner, small amplitude reversals after much stronger loading cannot produce an overly stiff
response.

19
2.6 Elastic strains and moduli

The elastic deviatoric strain and elastic volumetric strain are computed as:

ds
dee 
2G (20)

dp
d ve 
K (21)

where G is the elastic shear modulus and K is the elastic bulk modulus. The elastic shear modulus in
the model proposed herein is dependent on the mean effective stress according to,
1
 p 2
G  Go pA   CSR (22)
 pA 

where Go is a constant, pA is atmospheric pressure (101.3 kPa), and CSR is factor that accounts for
stress ratio effects (described below).

Dafalias and Manzari (2004) had included dependence of G on void ratio following the form of
Richart et al. (1970). This aspect was not included in the model herein because: (1) the effects of void
ratio changes on G are small relative to those of confining stress, (2) the value of Go is more strongly
affected by environmental factors such as cementation and ageing, and (3) the calibration of G to in-
situ shear wave velocity data requires only one constant (Go) rather than two (Go and e).

Yu and Richart (1984) showed that the small-strain elastic shear modulus of sand is dependent on
the stress ratio and stress ratio history. The effect of stress ratio was shown to generally be less than
about 10% when the ratio of major to minor principal effective stresses is less than about 2.5, but to
also increase to about 20-30% at higher principal stress ratios. They also showed that stress ratio
history caused a reduction in the small-strain elastic shear modulus when the maximum previous
stress ratio was greater than the current stress ratio. The effect of stress ratio and stress ratio history
on the elastic shear modulus was approximately accounted for in the present model by the factor CSR.
The following equation for CSR is similar in form to that used by Yu and Richart (1984) to represent
stress ratio effects, except that it uses stress ratio terms consistent with the present model,
mSR
 M 
CSR  1  CSR ,o   b  (23)
M 

The above equation approximates Yu and Richart's (1984) results for stress ratio effects when
CSR,0 = 0.3 and mSR = 2. The effects of stress ratio history would cause further reductions, and is more
complicated to represent. The calibration examples presented later in this report worked well with
CSR,0 = 0.6 and mSR = 4, which keeps the effect of stress ratio on elastic modulus small at small stress
ratios, but lets the effect increase to a 60% reduction when the stress ratio is on the bounding surface.

The elastic bulk modulus is related to the shear modulus through the Poisson's ratio as,

20
 2 1   
K G
3 1  2  (24)

as was done by Dafalias and Manzari (2004).

2.7 Plastic components without fabric effects

Loading index

The loading index (L) is used to compute the plastic component of volumetric strain and the
plastic deviatoric strain tensor as,

dvp  L D (25)

dep  L R
(26)

where D is the dilatancy, R is the direction of dp, R is the deviatoric component of R, and <> are
MacCauley brackets that set negative values to zero [i.e., <L> = L if L ≥ 0, and <L> = 0 if L < 0].
The tensor R for the assumption of no Lode angle dependency is,

1
R n DI
3 (27)

where n is the unit normal to the yield surface (Figure 2.3). Note that the assumption of no Lode
angle dependency also means that R = n. The dilatancy D relates the incremental plastic volumetric
strain to the incremental plastic deviatoric strain,

d vp
D
de p (28)

The dilatancy D can be also related to the conventional engineering shear strain in this plane
strain approximation, as

d vp
D
1 dp (29)
2

The loading index, as derived in Dafalias and Manzari (2004) is,

21
 1 f 1
L : dσ  n : ds  n : rdp 
K p σ Kp
2Gn : de  n : rKd v (30)
L
K p  2G  KDn : r

The stress increment for an imposed increment of strains can then be computed as,

d  2Gde  Kdv I  L  2Gn  KDI

(31)

Hardening and the update of the back-stress ratio

Updating of the back-stress ratio is dependent on the hardening aspects of the model. Dafalias and
Manzari (2004) updated the back-stress ratio according to bounding surface practice as,

dα  L 2  3  h α b
 α
(32)

where h is the hardening coefficient. The factor of 2/3 was included for convenience so that model
constants would be the same in triaxial and multi-axial derivations. They subsequently showed that
the consistency condition f=0 was satisfied when the plastic modulus Kp was related to the
hardening coefficient as,

2
Kp  p  h  αb  α  : n
3 (33)

This expression can be rearranged so as to show that the consistency equation can be satisfied by
expressing the hardening coefficient as,

3 Kp
h
2 p  α  α  : n
b
(34)

The relationship for the plastic modulus can subsequently take a range of forms, provided that the
hardening coefficient and updating of the back-stress ratio follow the above expressions.

Plastic modulus

The plastic modulus in the multi-axial generalized form of Dafalias and Manzari (2004), after
substituting in their expression for the hardening coefficient, can be expressed as,

22
 2  1e   αb  α : n
2 
K p  G  ho   1  Che   
3   2.97  e    α  αin  : n (35)

where ho and Ch are scalar parameters and e is the void ratio. Setting aside the secondary influence of
void ratio, this form illustrates that Kp is proportional to G, proportional to the distance of the back-
stress ratio to the bounding back-stress ratio, and inversely proportional to the distance of the back-
stress ratio from the initial back-stress ratio.

The plastic modulus relationship was revised in the model presented herein to provide an
improved approximation of empirical relationships for secant shear modulus and equivalent damping
ratios during drained strain-controlled cyclic loading. The plastic modulus is computed as,

 α b  α  : n 
0.5

K p  G  ho   
exp  α  αin  : n  1  C1 (36)

The constant C1 in the denominator serves to avoid division by zero and has a slight affect on the
nonlinearity and damping at small shear strains. If C1 = 0, then the value of Kp will be infinite at the
start of a loading cycle because (-in):n will also be zero. In that case, nonlinearity will become
noticeable only after (-in):n becomes large enough to reduce Kp closer to the value of G (e.g., Kp/G
closer to 100 or 200). Setting the value of C1 = ho/200 produces a reasonable response as will be
demonstrated later with examples of modulus reduction and equivalent damping ratios. For stress
ratios outside the bounding surface [i.e., loose-of-critical states with (b-):n < 0], the signs in the
above expression are modified to allow for negative values of plastic modulus as,

    αb  α  : n
0.5

K p  G  ho  (37)
exp  α  αin  : n  1  C1

Plastic volumetric strains - Dilation

Plastic volumetric strains are related to plastic deviatoric strains through the dilatancy D
(Equations 28 and 29), which is computed in the Dafalias and Manzari (2004) model and the base
component of the model presented herein (without fabric effects yet) as,

D  Ado   αd  α  : n

(38)

Note that dilation (increasing void ratio) occurs whenever the term (d-):n is less than zero whereas
contraction (decreasing void ratio) occurs when it is positive.

The constant Ado in this relationship can be related to the dilatancy relationship proposed by
Bolton (1986), which follows from the work of Rowe (1962), through the following sequence of

23
steps. Bolton showed that the difference between peak and constant volume friction angles could be
approximated as,

pk  cv  0.8

(39)
with
 d p 
  tan  vp
1

 d  (40)
 
Since  ≈ tan() for  less than about 0.35 radians (20 degrees), the difference between peak and
constant volume friction angles (in radians) can be approximated as,

dvp
pk  cv  0.8 p  0.8 1 D
d 2 (41)
The peak friction angle is mobilized at the bounding surface, so this can be written as,

2  
 pk  cv  0.8 1 Ado    d   : n 
 M b Md   (42)
 pk  cv  0.8 1 Ado   n n : n
2  2 2  
The term n:n is equal to unity, and the values of pk and cv (again in radians) can be replaced with
expressions in terms of Mb and M as,
 Mb  M
sin 1    sin 1    0.4Ado  M b  M d  (43)
 2  2

This expression can then be rearranged to solve for Ado as,

 1  M b  1  M 

 sin  2   sin  2  
1   (44)
Ado 
0.4 M M
b d

where the angles returned by the sin-1 functions are in radians.

The parameter Ado should thus be chosen to be consistent with the nd and nb terms that control Mb,
and Md. For example, setting the parameters nb and nd equal to 0.5 and 0.1, respectively, results in Ado
varying from 1.26 for ξR = -0.1 to 1.45 for ξR = -0.7. A default value for Ado is computed based on
the above expression using the conditions at the time of model initialization in FLAC (as described in
a later section). If an alternative value for Ado is manually input as a property of the model, then the
default value will be deactivated.

24
Alternatively, the stress ratio terms can be replaced with friction angles (in radians) as follows,
 pk  cv  0.4Ado  M b  M d 
 pk  cv  0.4Ado  M exp( n bR )  M( nd R )

   
 pk  cv  0.4Ado  2 sin  pk  2 sin d  (45)

   
 pk  cv  0.8 Ado  sin  pk  sin d 
The sine terms can be replaced with Taylor series, which are quite accurate with just the first two
terms as,

 
3

sin      (46)
3!

Substituting the Taylor series in the above equation gives,


    3 
 
3

  d  
 pk  cv  0.8Ado    pk 
pk     
 3!   d 3!   (47)
    

The parameter Ado can then be solved for as,

 pk  cv
Ado 
 pk 3  d 3 
0.8  pk  d   (48)
 6 

where the friction angles in the above expression are in radians. This expression provides an
alternative view of how the parameter Ado relates to friction angles for a given set of nb and nd terms
that control pk and d, respectively. For example, consider the case with the parameters nb and nd
equal to 0.5 and 0.1, respectively, and assuming cv = 33 degrees. For ξR = -0.1, we would obtain d =
32.6 degrees, pk =  degrees, and Ado = 1.26. For ξR = -0.7, we would obtain d = 30.5 degrees,
pk = 50.6 degrees, and Ado = 1.45.

Plastic volumetric strains - Contraction

Plastic volumetric strains during contraction (i.e., whenever (d-):n is greater than zero) are
computed in the Dafalias and Manzari (2004) model using the same expression as used for dilation,

D  Ado   αd  α  : n

(49)

25
 The use of this expression was found in the present study to limit the ability of the model to
approximate a number of important loading responses; e.g., it greatly overestimated the slope of the
cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) versus number of equivalent uniform loading cycles for undrained
cyclic element tests (e.g., Figure 1.).

Plastic volumetric strains during contraction for the model presented herein are computed using
the following expression,

2 ( d   ) : n
D  Adc  (    in ):n  Cin 
(  d   ) : n  CD (50)

Ado
Adc 
hp (51)

Cin  5.0 αin : n  αd : n

(52)

The various forms in the above relationships were developed to improve different aspects of the
calibrated model's performance. The value of D was set proportional to the square of ((-in):n + Cin)
as this improved the slope of the relationship between CRR and number of uniform loading cycles.
The inclusion of the term Cin improves the stress paths for undrained cyclic loading and the
volumetric strain response during drained cyclic loading; Inclusion of this constant enables some
volumetric strain to develop early in the unloading from a point outside the dilation surface. The
constant Cin is zero if the reversal which established in was on or below the dilation surface, and
increases with increases in the stress ratio at which the last reversal occurred. The remaining terms on
the right hand side of the equation were chosen to be close to unity over most of the loading range,
while ensuring that D smoothly goes to zero as  approaches d; Reasonable results were obtained
using a CD value of 0.10.

The parameter Adc for contraction was related to the value of Ado for dilation by dividing it by a
parameter hp that can be varied during the calibration process to obtain desired cyclic resistance
ratios. The effect of confining stress on cyclic loading behavior was then conveniently incorporated
by making hp depend on R, with the following form chosen so that the model produces results
consistent with the design K relationships presented earlier in Figure 1.4.

 
hp  hpo  exp 0.7  7.0 0.5  R 
2.5
 for R  0.5
(53)


hp  hpo  exp 0.7  for R  0.5 (54)

26
 The constant hpo can then be calibrated to arrive at a desired cyclic resistance ratio, once the other
input parameters have been selected.

A limit was imposed on the contraction rate, with the limiting value computed as,

D  1.5  Ado
α d
 α : n
α d
 α : n  CD (55)

This limit avoided numerical issues that were encountered with excessively large contraction
rates. It does not appear to have limited the ability of the model to recreate realistic contraction rates
as illustrated in the calibration examples shown later.

2.8 Fabric effects

Dafalias and Manzari (2004) introduced a fabric-dilatancy tensor (z) that could be used to account
for the effects of prior straining. Their fabric tensor (z) evolved in response to plastic volumetric
dilation strains, according to,

dz  cz d vp  zmaxn  z 

(56)

where the parameter cz controls the rate of evolution and zmax is the maximum value that z can attain.

The fabric-dilatancy tensor was modified for the present model as,

cz d vp
dz    zmaxn  z 
zcum D (57)
1 1
2zmax

In this expression, the tensor z evolves in response to plastic deviatoric strains that occur during
dilation only (i.e., dividing the plastic volumetric strain by the dilatancy gives plastic shear strain). In
addition, the cumulative value of absolute changes in z (zcum, a scalar quantity) is computed according
to,

dzcum  dz
(58)

The rate of evolution for z therefore decreases with increasing values of zcum, which enables the
undrained cyclic stress-strain response to progressively accumulate shear strains rather than lock-up
into a repeating stress-strain loop. In addition, the greatest past peak value (scalar amplitude) for z
during its loading history is also tracked,

27
  z:z 
z peak  max  ,z peak 
 2  (59)

The values of z, zpeak, and zcum are later used to facilitate the accumulation of shear strains under
symmetric loading through their effects on the plastic modulus and dilatancy relationships.
The evolution of the fabric tensor terms is illustrated in Figure 2.5 and Figure 2.6 showing the
response of a loose sand to undrained cyclic DSS loading without any sustained horizontal shear
stress (Figure 2.5) and with a sustained horizontal shear stress (Figure 2.6). These figures show the
stress path and stress-strain response of the sand, along with time histories for the back-stress ratios
and fabric tensor terms. Note how the fabric terms do not grow until the soil reaches the dilation
surface, and how the stress-ratios are limited by the bounding stress ratio. There is no horizontal shear
stress reversal for the case shown in Figure 2.6 and thus the back-stress ratio and fabric terms do not
reverse either.

Additional memory of fabric formation history

Memory of the fabric formation history was included in the model presented herein to improve
the ability of the model to account for the effects of sustained static shear stresses and account for
differences in fabric effects for various drained versus undrained loading conditions.

The initial fabric tensor (zin) at the start of the current loading path is determined whenever a
stress ratio reversal occurs, and thus correspond to the same times that the initial back-stress ratio and
previous initial back-stress ratio are updated. The zin tracks the immediate history terms without any
consideration of whether an earlier loading cycle had produced greater degrees of fabric (i.e., the
logic is different from that adopted for the updating of back-stress ratio history terms). This history
term is used for describing the degree of stress rotation and its effects on plastic modulus, as
described later.

Another aspect of the fabric history that is tracked is the mean stress at which the fabric is formed.
This aspect of fabric history is tracked by tracking the product of z and p, and defining pzp as the
mean stress at the time that this product achieves its greatest peak value. The pzp is used in addressing
a couple of issues, including the issue of how fabric that is formed during liquefaction may be erased
during reconsolidation. For example, saturated sand that develops cyclic mobility behavior during
undrained cyclic loading clearly remembers its history of plastic deviatoric strains and then
subsequently forgets (to a large extent) this prior strain history when it reconsolidates back to its pre-
earthquake confining stress. As another example, the memory of prior strains during undrained
cyclic loading is very different than the memory of prior strains during drained cyclic loading. This
memory conceptually could be related to the history of plastic and total volumetric strains, but a
simpler method to account for this effect is to consider how the mean stress p relates to the value of
pzp. Conceptually, it appears that prior strain history (or fabric) is most strongly remembered when
the soil is operating under mean stresses that are smaller than those that existed when the fabric was
formed (i.e., p << pzp) and then largely forgotten when they are of the same order (i.e., p  pzp). This
attribute will be used in the relationships described later for describing the effects of fabric on
dilatancy.

28
Effect of fabric on plastic modulus

An effect of fabric on the plastic modulus was added to the model presented herein by reducing
the plastic modulus as the fabric tensor increased in peak amplitude, as follows:

 α b  α  : n 
0.5

  1
K p  G  ho  
exp  α  αin  : n  1  C1 z 
1  CKp  peak   αb  α  : n (60)
 zmax 

This reduction in plastic modulus is conceptually motivated by the reduction in modulus that occurs
whenever fabric is favorable (z:n ≥ 0) and as any cementation is broken down with increasing plastic
shear strains. This reduces both the plastic modulus and the hysteretic damping at larger shear strains
(note that zpeak = 0 unless the soil has been loaded strongly enough to pass outside the dilation
surface), improves the volumetric strains that develop in drained cyclic loading, and improves the
path in undrained cyclic loading. Setting CKp equal to 2.0 was found to produce reasonable responses
with particular emphasis on improving (reducing) the equivalent damping ratios at shear strains of 1
to 3% in drained cyclic loading.

Effect of fabric on plastic volumetric dilation

An effect of fabric on the volume change behavior during dilation (D < 0), was added to the
model presented herein as follows,

D  Ad   αd  α : n
(61)

Ad 
Ado Czin2 
3
 zcum  z : n 
    
2

 1   C Cpzp Cp min Czin1 1 (62)

z 
 max   2  zpeak 

1
Cpzp  5
 
1   2.5 p  (63)
 pzp 

1
Cp min  3
p  (64)
1   min 
 p

 z :n z :n 
Czin1  1.0  exp  2.0 in 
 zmax  (65)

29
 zcum  zpeak
1  Czin1
3zmax
Czin2 
zcum  zpeak (66)
1  3 Czin1
3zmax

Consider the six terms added to the denominator. The first term [zcum2/zmax] facilitates the
progressive growth of strains under symmetric loading by reducing the dilatancy that occurs when a
liquefied soil has been sheared through many cycles of loading; note that this term progressively
increases with subsequent cycles of loading. The second term facilitates strain-hardening when the
plastic shear strain reaches the prior peak value, wherein the term approaches zero (i.e., when z:n
approaches zpeak√2) and the dilation rate consequently rapidly approaches the virgin loading value of
Ado. The third term C is a calibration constant that can be used to modify the rate of plastic shear
strain accumulation. The fourth term Cpzp causes the effects of fabric on dilation to be diminished
(erased) whenever the current value of p is near the value of pzp; This term enables the model to
provide reasonable predictions of responses to large numbers of either drained or undrained loading
cycles. The fifth term Cpmin provides a minimum amount of shear resistance for a soil after it has
temporarily reached an excess pore pressure ratio of 100%; This term is almost zero when p'=0, such
that the soil will initially dilate until some minimum p' has developed, after which the term quickly
approaches 1.0. The parameter pmin is currently set to become equal to 5% of the value of p' at
consolidation (which is the value that exists when the flag FirstCall –see Section 3– was last set equal
to 0), with the minimum value of pmin being 5.0 times the minimum value of p' (i.e., pA/200). The
sixth term Czin1 facilitates strain-hardening when stress reversals are not causing fabric changes; i.e.,
when the initial and current fabric terms are close to equal, the term Czin1 goes to zero. Lastly, the
second term in the numerator, Czin2, causes the dilatancy to be decreased by up to a factor of 3 under
conditions of large strains and full stress (and fabric) reversals, which improves the prediction of
cyclic strain accumulation during undrained cyclic loading.

Effect of fabric on plastic volumetric contraction

Dafalias and Manzari (2004) used the fabric tensor to modify the dilatancy during contraction
(D > 0) as follows,

D  Ad   αd  α : n 1  z : n  (67)

This relationship enhances the volumetric contraction whenever the fabric is favorable (z:n ≥ 0),
based on the term 1+<z:n> as recommended by Dafalias and Manzari (2004).

The effect of fabric on dilatancy during contraction was modified for the present model as,

D  Adc   α  α
α d
 α : n
 :nC
2
in

in 
αd
 α  : n  CD (68)

30
 Adc 

Ado 1  z : n 
hpCdz (69)

 z  z  1
Cdz  1  peak   max
 
 zmax   zmax  zcum  z (70)
1  max
2

The denominator term Cdz serves to increase the rate of contraction as zpeak nears zmax or as a large
amount of cumulative fabric formation/destruction has taken place. This term was developed for
improved modeling of the cyclic strength of denser sands, for which the value of hp can be on the
order of 100. The degrading of the denominator as zpeak or zcum increases enables the generation of
high excess pore pressures at higher loading levels, and controls the slope of the CRR versus number
of uniform loading cycles relationship obtained for undrained element loading. Note that the
denominator degrades whether fabric is favorable or not, but that the overall rate of contraction is
more enhanced if the fabric is favorable (z:n ≥ 0). Lastly, the limit on the minimum value of Cdz is
required for avoiding division by zero and to avoid over-estimating contraction rates (i.e., small
values of hp and large values of zpeak or zcum).

Effect of fabric on the elastic modulus

The elastic shear modulus and elastic bulk modulus may degrade with increasing values of
cumulative plastic deviator strain term, zcum. This component of the model was added to account for
the progressive destruction, with increasing plastic shear strains, of any minor cementation bonds or
other ageing- or strain history-related phenomena that produced an increase in small-strain shear
modulus. The destruction of minor cementation by plastic shear strains is evidenced in the field by
measurements of shear wave velocities in sand that are lower after earthquake shaking than before
earthquake shaking (e.g., Arai 2006). The degradation of the elastic shear modulus is computed as,

 z 
1 1  cum 
 p  2
4zmax
G  Go pA   CSR  
 pA   1  zcum C  (71)
 4zmax
DG 
 

where CDG is the factor by which the shear modulus is degraded (divided) at very large values of zcum.
This change in the elastic shear modulus G causes the bulk modulus K to progressively decrease with
increasing zcum. The change in K improves the model's ability to track the stress-strain response of
liquefying sand. In particular, decreasing K with increasing zcum reduces the rate of strain-hardening
after phase transformation at larger shear strain levels, and improves the ability to approximate the
hysteretic stress-strain response of a soil as it liquefies.

31
Effect of fabric on the response under sustained static shear stresses

The formulation of the Dafalias and Manzari (2004) model was found to predict effects of
sustained static shear stresses on undrained cyclic loading behavior that are opposite to those
observed experimentally; the model predicts that a sustained static shear stress increases the cyclic
resistance of loose sands and decreases the cyclic resistance of dense sands. Revisions to the model,
as described above, showed that the response under sustained static shear stresses was dependent on
several components of the model, such that no one feature controls this aspect of behavior.

The model proposed herein was found to reasonably approximate the effects of a sustained shear
stress on the undrained cyclic loading behavior of loose sands, but not for dense sands. The effects of
a sustained static shear stress for dense sands was improved by modifying the plastic modulus for the
effects that rotation of the back-stress ratio (represented by a factor CK1), such that it becomes,

 α b  α  : n 
0.5

  CK 
K p  G  ho  
exp  α  αin  : n  1  C1 z 
1  CKp  peak   αb  α  : n (72)
 zmax 

The parameter CK tracks the effect of rotation in the back-stress ratio as,

 in :n
 p
in 
  in : n
2
r 
 p
in
  in : n   1
(73)

CK  1  C  r
 p
in  
  in : n     in : n 
 p
in  
  in : n     in : n   2  (74)

The parameter r describes the degree of stress ratio rotation, with r =0 corresponding to a condition
of full stress ratio reversal, and r ≥1 corresponding to a condition without any stress ratio reversal. In
the expression for CK, the term inside the MacCauley brackets is approximately equal to unity until
the current back-stress ratio gets close to the previous back-stress ratio, at which point it quickly
decreases to zero. In this manner, the CK term only causes an increase in plastic modulus for stress
ratios that are between the initial back-stress ratio and previous back-stress ratio (i.e., a reloading
condition). The parameters 1 and 2 are simply constants that preclude division by zero and/or allow
a smooth transition as the other term in the denominator goes to zero; values of 0.01 and 0.05 for 1
and 2, respectively, were found to provide reasonable responses for the present model. The
remaining parameter, C, provides the magnitude of the increase in plastic modulus in the reloading
condition, and can be used to increase the cyclic strength under conditions of a sustained static shear
stress.

32
Effect of fabric on peak mobilized friction angles in drained and undrained loading

Kutter and Chen (1997) showed that plastic dilation rates are different in drained and undrained
loading of the same clean sand, with the consequence being that the peak mobilized friction angles
are also different for drained and undrained loading. This aspect of behavior would appear to be
contradictory to having a bounding surface that is only dependent on the relative state of the sand
(i.e., through the parameter nb) if the mobilized friction angles for drained and undrained loading
paths are both controlled by the bounding surface. The model proposed herein produces the same
peak mobilized friction angles for drained and undrained loading because both conditions become
limited by the same bounding surface. This aspect of behavior deserves closer examination in future
efforts.

2.9 Summary of Constitutive Equations

The constitutive equations for the model presented herein are summarized in Table 2.1 along with
the equations for the Dafalias-Manzari (2004) model.

33
Table 2.1. Comparison of constitutive equations
Dafalias-Manzari (2004) model Present model
Critical state line Critical state line

p  R
ec  eo    cs  R   DR
 pA   p
Q  ln 100 
 pA 

Elastic deviatoric strain increment Elastic deviatoric strain increment

ds ds
dee  dee 
2G 2G
 2.97  e
2
 p
1
2  z 
 1  cum
1

G  Go pA    p  2
4zmax
1e  pA  G  Go pA   CSR  
 pA   1  zcum C 
 4zmax
DG 
 
mSR
 M 
CSR  1  CSR ,o   b 
M 
CSR,o  0.5
mSR  4

Elastic volumetric strain increment Elastic volumetric strain increment

dp dp
d ve  d ve 
K K

2 1    2 1   
K G K G
3 1  2  3 1  2 

34
Yield surface Yield surface
1 1
f   s  pα  :  s  pα   2
 2 pm  0 f   s  pα  :  s  pα   2
 1 pm  0
3 2

Plastic deviatoric strain increment Plastic deviatoric strain increment

de  L R
p
dep  L R
 1  1 1 1
R  Bn  C  n2  I   DI R  R  DI  n  DI
 3  3 3 3
31c
B 1  g  ,c  cos  3  
2 c
3 1c
C 3 g  ,c 
2 c
Qext
c
Qcompr
2c
g  ,c  
1  c   1  c  cos  3  
M b  M exp nbR 
M  M  exp n 
b
 b
 M  2  sin cv  
3 
 b  2  g ,c  M b  m  n b  1 M b  m  n
2 
2
K p  G  ho
 α b  α  : n  αb  α  : n
0.5
CK 
 
3  α  α in  : n K p  G  ho 
exp  α  αin  : n  1  C1

z 
1  CKp  peak   αb  α  : n
 zmax 
ho
C 1 
200
CKp 2

35
 αin : n
α p
in  αin  : n
2
r 
α p
in  αin  : n
 1
2

CK 1  1  C  r
α p
in  αin  : n   α  αin  : n
α p
in  αin  : n   α  αin  : n  2
1  0.01
 2  0.05

Plastic volumetric strain increment Plastic volumetric strain increment

d vp  L D d vp  L D

 
M d  M  exp nd  M d  M  exp nd R  
3 
 d  2  g ,c  M d  m  n  d  1 M d  m  : n
2
Ad  Ao 1  z : n 
D  Ad  αd  α  : n If dilating (D < 0):

D  Ad   αd  α : n

Ado Czin2 
Ad  3
 z2   z : n 
1   cum  1   C  Cpzp Cp min  Czin1 
 zmax   2  zpeak 


36
  1  Mb  1  M 
sin    sin  
1   2   2 
Ado 
0.4 M b  Md
1
Cpzp  5
 
1   2.5 p 
 pzp 

1
Cp min  5
1   min 
p
 p
 z :n z :n 
Czin1  1.0  exp  2.0 in 
 zmax 
z  zpeak
1  Czin1 cum
3zmax
Czin2 
z  zpeak
1  3  Czin1 cum
3zmax

If contracting (D ≥ 0)

D  Adc   α  α
αd
 α : n
 :nC
2
in

in  α
d
 α  : n  CD
Ado 1  z : n 
Adc 
hpCdz
 z  zmax  1
Cdz  1  peak  
 zmax  zmax  zcum  1  zmax
2
CD  0.1

37
  
hp  hpo  exp 0.7  7.0 0.5  R 
2.5
 for R  0.5


hp  hpo  exp 0.7  for R  0.5

Fabric-dilatancy tensor update Fabric-dilatancy tensor update

dz  cz d  p
 zmaxn  z  cz d vp
v
dz    zmaxn  z 
zcum D
1 1
2zmax
dzcum  dz
Stress increment Stress increment
2Gn : de  n : rKd v 2Gn : de  n : rKd v
L L
K p  2G  B  C  tr n3   KDn : r K p  2G  KDn : r
d   2Gde  Kd v I d  2Gde  Kdv I  L  2Gn  KDI
   1  
 L  2G Bn  C  n2  I   KDI 
   3  

38
 (a)
Critical state line from IRD relation
0% (Bolton 1986) with Q=10 & R=1

Relative density, DR

100%

0.1 1 10 100
Mean principal effective stress, p/Pa

(b)
0%
Q=10 & R=1
Relative density, DR

Q=10 & R=1.5

Q=9 & R=1

100%

0.1 1 10 100
Mean principal effective stress, p/Pa

Figure 2.1. Definition of the relative state parameter index, R (Boulanger 2003a)
and the effects of varying Q and R.

39
Figure 2.2. Schematic of yield, critical, dilatancy, and bounding lines in q-p space
(after Dafalias & Manzari 2004).

40
 ryy = syy / p

Bounding Yield
surface surface

Dilatancy n
surface
r

rxy = sxy / p

n
d
b

Figure 2.3. Schematic of the bounding, dilation, and yield surfaces on the ryy-rxy stress-ratio plane
with the yield surface, normal tensor, dilatancy back stress ratio, and bounding back stress ratio.

41
 yy yy yy

Bounding Bounding Bounding

surface surface surface
at b at b at b

inp
in inp

in
  inp
in 
n n n
xy xy xy

Figure 2.4. Schematic showing the definitions of the initial back-stress ratio and previous initial back-stress ratio on the yy-xy plane.

42
 Undrained Cyclic DSS: DR = 35% , 'vo = 100 kPa , Ko = 0.5 ,  = s / 'vo = 0.0
0.8 0.8

/ 'vc

/ 'vc and 'h / 'vc

/ 'vc and 'v / 'vc

0.6 0.6
'h / 'vc
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0

-0.2 -0.2
-4 -2 0 2 4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Shear strain (%) Vertical effective stress 'v / 'vc

0.8 2
1.5
12 z11 = 0.0
Back-stress ratio 

Fabric tensor, z
0.4 1
0.5
0 0
-0.5
-0.4 -1 z12
11
-1.5
-0.8 -2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Loading Cycle Loading Cycle

Figure 2.5. Undrained cyclic DSS loading response for DR = 35% with an initial static shear stress
ratio of α=0.0, showing the variation in stresses, stress ratios, and fabric tensor terms.

43
 Undrained Cyclic DSS: DR = 35% , 'vo = 100 kPa , Ko = 0.5 ,  = s / 'vo = 0.2
0.8 0.8

/ 'vc

/ 'vc and 'h / 'vc

/ 'vc and 'v / 'vc

0.6 0.6
'h / 'vc
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0

-0.2 -0.2
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Shear strain (%) Vertical effective stress 'v / 'vc

0.2 2

11 1.6
0
Back-stress ratio 

z12

Fabric tensor, z
1.2
-0.2
0.8
-0.4 z11
0.4
12
-0.6
0

-0.8 -0.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Loading Cycle Loading Cycle

Figure 2.6. Undrained cyclic DSS loading response for DR = 35% with an initial static shear stress
ratio of α=0.20, showing the variation in stresses, stress ratios, and fabric tensor terms.

44
3. MODEL IMPLEMENTATION

The model has been implemented as a user defined material (udm) for use with the commercial
finite difference program, FLAC 7.0 (Itasca 2011). This section includes a brief description of the
mixed discretization scheme used in FLAC, the numerical implementation scheme used for
PM4Sand, some additional comments on alternative implementation schemes, and information
regarding the dynamic link library (DLL) for PM4Sand.

3.1 Aspects of FLAC's Numerical Approach

Explicit Integration

FLAC is an explicit finite difference program which uses time steps equal to or smaller than the
minimum time required for waves to travel between any pair of nodes. This approach ensures that
physical information does not propagate faster than numerical information. FLAC computes a
default time step based on the properties of the model (e.g., element size, material stiffness,
permeability, damping). Users may specify a time step that is smaller than the default value.

Obtaining numerically convergent solutions to nonlinear problems using FLAC requires that:

1) integration of the constitutive models be convergent, and

2) the explicit global solution is convergent.

The default time step computed by FLAC does not necessarily ensure a numerically convergent
solution, especially for FLAC models that are subjected to very high loading rates. Convergence of
the constitutive model's integration depends more strongly on the strain increment size, which is
dependent on both the loading rate and time step size. Convergence of the explicit global solution
depends more strongly on the sizes of the stress increments generated in the materials, which again
are only indirectly controlled by the default time step size. For this reason, the user needs to evaluate
the sensitivity of the solution to the time step size and not automatically assume that the default time
step size ensures a convergent solution.

Mixed Discretization Scheme

FLAC uses a mixed discretization technique in which each quadrilateral zone (analogous to an
element) is subdivided internally by its diagonals into two overlaid sets of constant-strain triangles.
The term “mixed” stems from the fact that different discretizations are used for the isotropic and
deviatoric parts of the strain and stress tensor (Marti and Cundall 1982). Isotropic stress and strain
components are taken to be constant over the whole quadrilateral element, while the deviatoric
components are treated separately for each triangular sub-element. Essentially, the shear strains are
computed and maintained for each individual triangle, while the volumetric strains are computed for
each quadrilateral as a weighted average of the volumetric strains within the juxtaposed pairs of
triangles. Hour-glass modes are resisted by shear stresses generated in the triangles and the scheme
accurately predicts plastic collapse loads because constant volume deformations are possible within
the quadrilaterals. Note that discretization using triangles or four-node quadrilaterals alone would
result in meshes that are over-constrained (too stiff) and which would tend to over-predict plastic

45
collapse loads. Since each quadrilateral can be divided by two possible diagonals, a symmetric
response of this discretization can only be obtained by running two complete meshes in parallel, each
representing one half of the overall stiffness. At the end, the procedure reduces the number of
constraints on plastic flow and, at the same time, reduces unwanted hourglassing by ensuring that
hourglass modes produce non-zero stresses.

The implementation of a complex constitutive model in FLAC requires special attention to the
way stresses and strains are handled under FLAC's mixed discretization scheme. During each time
step, FLAC calls the constitutive model once per triangular subzone (four times per zone). The
isotropic components of the stress outputs from the four subzones are then averaged internally by
FLAC according to the Mixed Discretization scheme. A consequence of this averaging of stresses is
that the final stress state for any subzone is unlikely to satisfy the consistency condition of elasto-
plastic models, meaning that the newly calculated stress states will not necessarily lie on the yield
surface. Andrianopoulos (2006) addressed this problem by adopting a vanished elastic region in their
elasto-plastic model.

3.2. Implementation of PM4Sand in FLAC

The implementation scheme for PM4Sand and how it relates to the challenges posed by FLAC's
mixed discretization scheme (section 3.1) are described here. Recall that each zone (consisting of four
subzones) will start off at the beginning of each time step with a stress state and will be loaded by a
strain increment whose volumetric components are the same in all four subzones while their
deviatoric components are different (due to the mixed discretization scheme). The constitutive model
will be called once per subzone (four times per zone) to obtain stresses from strains according to
Equation 83 where Cijkl denotes the constitutive law:

 ij( i1)   ij( i )  d ij( dt )   ij( i )  Cijkl d  ij( dt )

(75)

At the end of the step, each subzone will have its own stress state, which will be handled by FLAC
independent of the constitutive model, and its own internal parameters, which FLAC will be unaware
of. The subzones can therefore all have different stress states at the beginning of the next loading
increment, and as such would need to maintain their own sets of internal parameters.

The current implementation scheme for PM4Sand is illustrated in Figure 3.1 and described by the
pseudo-code listed in Table 3.1. At the end of each time step, the stress and internal variables are
averaged over the four subzones. A drift correction is applied to ensure that the averaged stresses and
internal variables satisfy the consistency condition; the correction involves projecting the back-stress
ratio in the direction of the zone-averaged stress ratio. Another correction is applied if the zone-
averaged stress ratio lies outside the bounding surface; the correction involves projecting the zone
averaged stress ratio back along a normal to the bounding surface. The zone-averaged stresses are
then used to compute a new dilatancy D and plastic modulus Kp that are consistent with the average
response of the zone over this step. These values for D and Kp are then used by all four subzones in
the next time step (i.e., the values of D and Kp lag one step behind the time step for which they were
determined); note that this approach is used by other elasto-plastic models available in FLAC.
Consequently, the four subzones will use a common D and Kp during each time step. Most other

46
internal parameters are also computed and retained at the zone level, as described by the pseudo-code
in Table 3.1.

Two other implementation schemes for PM4Sand were explored for comparison purposes and
found to have problems. The first of these alternative implementations was that used in version 1 of
PM4Sand. In this implementation, each subzone had its own D and Kp and developed its own internal
variables (e.g., fabric, back-stress-ratios, history terms) for each loading increment or step. At the end
of the step, the stress and internal variables were averaged at the zone level and the drift and
bounding surface corrections applied. The four subzones therefore started each loading step with a
common set of stresses and internal variables, but each could have greatly differing values for D and
Kp depending on the loading direction imposed on each subzone. In highly nonlinear loading steps, it
was possible for one or two of the overlapping subzones to be strongly contractive (e.g., perhaps
because of a reversal in loading direction) while the other subzones were strongly dilative, such that
the incremental changes in stresses between the four subzones had competing effects on the zone's
average behavior. This implementation was found to sometimes lead to unusual deformation modes
in zones that were connected to piles by FLAC's interface springs. The unusual deformation modes
are believed to be due to strong differences in loading directions and conditions between the subzones
of zones being loaded by interface springs. This problem was effectively eliminated by the current
implementation described in Table 3.1. The second of these alternative implementations increased the
independence of the subzones, just to explore how it would affect behavior. In this implementation,
each subzone (triangle) retained its own memory and history of stresses and internal parameters. This
approach led to nonsensical results between the overlapping triangular subzones, especially when the
loading conditions were highly nonlinear. For example, the external stresses sometimes could be
carried by only two of the overlapping triangles (each having twice the correct stresses) while the
stresses in the other two overlapping triangles went to zero. The experiences with these two
alternative implementation schemes illustrate how FLAC's mixed discretization scheme requires
special considerations when implementing highly nonlinear constitutive models.

Implementation of PM4Sand uses explicit integration and thus the user should routinely check
that the solutions are not sensitive to time step size. The addition of substepping could improve the
constitutive model's integration but would not eliminate the need to evaluate the effect of time step
size on the global solution. In our experiences, the default time steps of FLAC in dynamic analyses
of liquefaction problems have been small enough to ensure that numerical solutions are not
significantly affected by time step size, and thus the additional computational cost of including
substepping at the constitutive level was not considered necessary. Examples of the effects of time
step size are presented in Section 3.3.

Numerical stability of the implemented model has been evaluated for a wide range of simulations
of both element responses and system responses using the default range of parameters which are also
summarized in the next section. Numerical stability problems may, however, develop when using
input parameters which fall outside the ranges explored during model development, calibration, and
implementation. Some initial bounds have therefore been placed on certain parameters whenever
parametric analyses identified the potential for such problems; e.g., the minimum value of mean
stress is limited to 0.5 kPa or 0.005 times the initial consolidation stress; the relative density was
limited to values less than 1.2. The user must be aware that other limits may be identified as
additional analyses explore a broader range of the possible input parameters.

47
3.3 Effect of Time Step Size on Element Responses

Numerical convergence of the current implementation of PM4Sand was evaluated by running

numerous problems using a range of dynamic time steps (dydt), beginning with the default
(maximum) time step computed by FLAC and then trying smaller and smaller values. These
comparisons have shown that the solutions are not sensitive to the time step size for the range of
problems and loading rates examined. The user must always check the sensitivity of boundary value
problems to the time step size, however, as the accuracy of the explicit integration is strongly
dependent on the size of the strain increments which are only partly controlled by the time step size.

For example, the effect of time step size (or strain increment size) on integration of the PM4Sand
model is shown in Figure 3.3a for a single element simulation of a cyclic drained DSS test for sand at
DR = 55% at σ'vo = 100kPa. The element was subjected to two cycles of strain-controlled loading with
a single-amplitude shear strain of 1%. The strain rate was constant, with each cycle having a total
duration of 1 sec (i.e., average loading frequency was 1 Hz). The default time step was 1.038e-4 s
and the strain rate was 4 %/s which gives a step size of =4.15e-6 %/step. To evaluate different Δγ,
the time step was reduced by factors of 1/2, 1/4, and 1/8. The simulated stress-strain responses
showed minimal differences, indicating that the integration was sufficiently accurate for practical
purposes.

A second example of the effect of time step size is shown in Figure 3.3b for a stress-controlled
cyclic undrained DSS test for sand at DR = 55% at σ'vo = 100kPa. The default time step was 3.604e-
5 s and the strain rate was again 4 %/s which gives a step size of =1.44e-6 %/step. The default time
step is smaller for the undrained element test because of the higher wave speed in the pore water. To
evaluate different Δγ, the time step was again reduced by factors of 1/2, 1/4, and 1/8. The simulated
stress-strain responses again showed minimal differences, indicating that the integration was
sufficiently accurate for practical purposes.

Figure 3.3a and b presents the same examples as Figure 3.2a and b but for a very high strain rate
of 12%/s. The corresponding step sizes for the drained (a) and undrained (b) cases are 12.45e-6%/step
and 4.32e-6 %/step, respectively. To evaluate different Δγ, the time step was again reduced by factors
of 1/2, 1/4 and 1/8. The simulated stress-strain responses for the drained case showed minimal
differences, whereas the undrained case showed some slight differences. The differences for the
undrained case are attributed to the very high strain rate of 12%/sec, which was only used to examine
the limits of behaviors.

Note that comparisons of solutions at different step sizes Δγ cannot be made by varying the strain
rate or cyclic loading frequency. FLAC is always solving the dynamic equation of equilibrium so
changing the strain rate by changing any loading rate parameter also changes the dynamic excitation
for the system, which can cause a change in the dynamic response of the element. In that case, any
changes in the stress-strain response caused by changes in loading rate parameters may be a realistic
simulation result that reflects the change in the dynamic excitation of the element.

48
3.4 Effect of Time Step Size on System Responses

The effect of time step size on the solution of full boundary value problems can similarly be
examined by repeating simulations with successively smaller dynamic time step sizes. As an
example, the effect of time step size on the response of a 2D simulation of a dynamic centrifuge
model test (base simulation by Kamai 2011) is illustrated in Figure 3.4. Time histories of horizontal
displacements at two points in the model are shown for the default time step size and for time step
sizes that are 1/2, 1/4 and 1/8 of the default size. The differences in the horizontal displacements at
the end of shaking are about 7.2%, 1.2% and 6.6%, respectively for Figure 3.3a and 2.2%, 0.1% and
4.8% for Figure 3.3b. The differences are illustrative of the range of effects observed in many cases,
and are generally small enough for practical applications.

The sensitivity of simulation results to the dynamic time step size should always be evaluated as part
of the sensitivity studies. As previously discussed in section 3.1, the effects of changing time step size
may result from a combination of the effects on the constitutive model integration and the explicit
global solution. Implementation of substepping in the constitutive model may reduce its effect, but
will not remove the need to check the global solution's sensitivity to the step size. Since the
sensitivity to step size should always be checked, the additional computational costs of including
substepping at the constitutive level was not considered warranted at this time.

3.5 DLL Module

The PM4Sand model was coded in C++ and compiled as a DLL in Microsoft Visual Studio 2005.
It has been tested in FLAC7 using the software’s option for User Defined Models (UDMs). The steps
required for using a DLL are described in the FLAC manuals (Itasca 2011), and are thus only briefly
summarized herein.

Automatic loading of the DLL file

(1) Load the DLL file in the /Exe32/plugins/models subdirectory of the folder where FLAC has
been installed.

(2) Open the FLAC7.0 executable file or the FLAC graphical user interface. If the DLL is
properly located, then the model should be automatically loaded. In order to verify that it has
been loaded, the user can type “print model” in the console. If the model has been loaded then
it should appear as “pm4sand” under the list of “Currently loaded CPP models”.

(3) Before constitutive model plug-ins can be assigned to zones, the model must be configured for
their use by giving the config cppudm command. Otherwise, the user will get a “model
will not cycle” error message.

Manual loading of the DLL file

(1) First, the user must make sure that the DLL file is located in the same folder together with the
project file (*.prj) of the analysis.

49
 (2) In the project file (or the called fish file for the analysis) the model must be first configured
for the use of constitutive model plug-ins (config cppudm) and then the model’s DLL can be
loaded (model load modelpm4s003.dll). Again the user can verify the loading of the model by
subsequently typing “print model” in the console.

In order to assign the model to the preferred zones the following command should be given:

model pm4sand i = … j = … 

Additional notes regarding the DLL file

(1) The ability to use the DLL with FLAC's "free-field" lateral boundary conditions option has
not been configured at this time. The user should not have PM4Sand in the outer column of
elements against which the free-field lateral boundary condition will be applied.

50
 Figure 3.1 Schematic illustration of the averaging procedure followed in the implementation of
PM4Sand: zone-averaged values are computed for some internal variables of the model, denoted as
“m”, at the end of each step, after which other internal parameters, denoted as “q”, are computed
based on the zone-averaged parameters

51
Table 3.1: Simplified pseudo-code of PM4Sand (Version 2)

Operations within one subzone:

1. Initialize the model parameters; this only happens when the model is first assigned or when FirstCall is set to zero at
some point during the analysis. For detailed information on what parameters are initialized (or reset) see Table 3.2.
2. Obtain the strain increment from FLAC .
3. Decompose the strain increment into volumetric and deviatoric components, and .
4. Calculate the trial elastic stress increment and trial elastic stress:
2
5. Calculate the trial stress ratio , the distance from the yield surface , the unit normal to the yield surface
and the inner product of the change in back-stress ratio tensor with unit normal vector daxn.

:
6. Check for yield:
a. If elastic then commit the trial stresses. Go to step 7.
1

√2

b. If inelastic:
i. Calculate loading index L:
2 : :
2 :
ii. Calculate trial stress increment and trial stress:
2 2
iii. Apply penalties to stress ratios and back-stress ratios to meet the consistency condition and to remain
within the bounding surface.
iv. Calculate image back-stress ratios and inner products:
1
:
√2
1
:
√2
v. Commit the trial stresses (back-stress ratio, stress ratio, mean stress, stress)
7. Return all stress tensor components to FLAC (at this point FLAC takes over and will average them according to the
mixed discretization scheme)

Operations referring to the whole zone:

8. After the calculation has completed the 4th subzone, the following additional calculations are performed for the
overall zone. Recall the following parameters for all 4 subzones and compute area-weighted average values for:
 Volumetric strain
 Strain increment
 Mean stress ̅
 Stress tensor (committed one)
 Back-stress ratio tensor
 Unit normal to yield surface vector

52
9. Apply penalties to the averaged zone parameters to meet the consistency condition and remain within the bounding
surface.
10. Calculate image back-stress ratios and inner products for the averaged zone parameters.
11. Track reversals in the stress-ratio based on averaged parameters.
12. Compute Dilatancy D and Plastic Modulus Kp for the past average step in the zone.
13. Compute plastic volumetric strain for use in fabric terms.
14. If dilating (D<0), update the fabric tensor for the zone and if exceeding its former value, update the cumulating
fabric term.

1,
2
15. Update the relative state parameter, the bounding and dilation stress ratios, the elastic shear modulus (depends on
fabric) and the elastic bulk modulus for the next step.
16. Update the initial and previous initial back-stress values and the strain increment accumulators.
17. Update initial back-stress ratios upon reversal.
18. Commit zone stress tensor, zone mean stress, zone back-stress ratio tensor, zone stress-ratio tensor to memory.

53
Table 3.2: Initialization function of PM4Sand (called during the first application of the model and
whenever FirstCall=0)

1. Obtain stresses from FLAC and create stress tensor (these will be the committed stresses from which the
calculation will start):

2. Check stresses and calculate mean effective stress:

a. If stresses compressive (following FLAC’s sign convention that tensile stresses and strains are positive):
1
0 → ,
2
,
200
,
20
b. If stresses tensile:
0 →
20
∙
3. Calculate relative state parameter and subsequently calculate the bounding and dilation stress ratios and Ado (from
input property DR and secondary parameters R, Q, nb and nd – see Chapter 4):

100
a. If dense-of-critical ( 0):
,

2
2.5

b. If loose-of-critical ( 0):

, 4 , 1.24
4
4. Check that initial stresses are inside the bounding surface (or dilation surface if it is greater) and compute the
committed back-stress and stress ratio tensors from the stress tensor:
1
, , 2∙ :
2
a. If :

b. If :

54
5. Create/Initialize the initial back-stress ratio, initial previous back-stress ratio, minimum initial back-stress ratio and
maximum initial back-stress ratio tensors (see also Section 2.5 on Stress Reversal):

6. Calculate initial values of elastic shear modulus, elastic bulk modulus, plastic modulus, dilatancy:

2 1
3 1 2

100

7. Initialize fabric related terms (see Section 2.8) – note that these terms will be referring to the whole zone:

100

100000

: 0

50

55
Figure 3.2 Effect of dynamic time step on the results obtained from (a) drained and (b) undrained
cyclic DSS element test simulations (DR=55%, σ'vo=1atm) loaded at a shear strain rate of 12%/s.
The black line in each case denotes the response obtained with FLAC’s default dynamic time
step.

56
Figure 3.3 Effect of dynamic time step on the results obtained from (a) drained and (b) undrained
cyclic DSS element test simulations (DR=55%, σ'vo=1atm) loaded at a shear strain rate of 12%/s.
The black line in each case denotes the response obtained with FLAC’s default dynamic time
step.

57
 0 Dynamic Time Step
Horizontal Displacement ( m )

Default
Half
Quarter
-0.04
Eighth

-0.08

-0.12

(a)

-0.16

0.02
(b)
Horizontal Displacement ( m )

-0.02

-0.04
End of shaking

-0.06

-0.08
0 10 20 30
time ( sec )

Figure 3.4 Comparison of the effect of the variation of the dynamic time step on the results obtained
from the analysis of a 2D mesh (SSK01 – Kamai 2011). Results are presented at two points within
the mesh.

58
4. MODEL INPUT PARAMETERS AND RESPONSES

4.1 Model input parameters

The model parameters are grouped into two categories; a primary set of five parameters (three
properties, one flag, and atmospheric pressure) that are most important for model calibration, and a
secondary set of parameters that may be modified from their default values in special circumstances.

Primary input parameters

The three primary input parameters are the sand’s apparent relative density DR, the shear modulus
coefficient Go, and the contraction rate parameter hpo. These three parameters are discussed below
and summarized in Table 4.1.

Relative density (DR) can be estimated in practice by correlation to penetration resistances. For
example, a common form for SPT correlations is,

 N1 60
DR 
Cd (76)

where DR is expressed as a ratio rather than a percentage. Idriss and Boulanger (2008) reviewed
published data and past relationships, and then adopted a value of Cd=46 in the development of their
liquefaction triggering correlations. For the CPT, they similarly reviewed available relationships and
arrived at the following expression,
0.264
q 
DR  0.465  c1N  1.063
C  (77)
 dq 

for which they adopted Cdq=0.9. For the example loading responses shown later, DR values of 35%,
55%, and 75% were used, which would correlated to SPT (N1)60 values of 6, 14, and 26 by the above
correlations.

The input value of DR is best considered an "apparent relative density," rather than a strict
measure of relative density following conventional laboratory tests. The input value of DR influences
the response of the model and thus it is just another input parameter that the user can adjust as part of
the calibration process. The above correlations are provided for the purpose of obtaining a reasonable
estimate for the apparent DR so that the resulting model behaviors are also reasonable. There are
situations, however, where the user may choose to adjust the input DR, up or down relative to the
above relationships, to improve its calibration to some other relationship or data.

The second primary input parameter is the constant Go which will control the elastic (or small
strain) shear modulus as,

59
 1
 p  2
G  Go pA   (78)
 pA 

The elastic shear modulus can be calibrated to fit in-situ Vs measurements, according to,

G    Vs 
2
(79)

or alternatively fit to values of Vs that may be estimated by correlation to penetration resistances. For
the examples shown herein, the correlation by Andrus and Stokoe (2000) in Figure 4.1 was used, with
a slight modification that constrains the extrapolation to very small (N1)60 values, as shown in the
figure,
0.25
Vs1  85  N1 60  2.5  (80)

The above relationships in combination with the default values for the maximum and minimum
void ratios (described later) produce Vs1 values of 144, 171, and 196 m/s and corresponding Go
values of 468, 677, and 907 for the DR values of 35%, 55%, and 75%, respectively.

Alternatively, the above expressions were combined together with a range of typical densities to
arrive at the following simpler expression for estimating Go,

Go  167  N1 60  2.5 (81)

This expression produces Go values of 476, 677, and 890 for the DR values of 35%, 55%, and 75%,
respectively.

The third primary input parameter is the constant hpo which is used to modify the contractiveness
and hence enable calibration of the model to specific values of cyclic resistance ratio (CRR). For the
examples presented herein, the target CRR values were based on the liquefaction triggering
correlation by Idriss and Boulanger (2008) in Figure 1.2. This relationship produces target CRR
values for an effective overburden stress of 1 atm and an earthquake magnitude of M=7.5 of 0.090,
0.147, and 0.312 for the corresponding SPT (N1)60 values of 6, 14, and 26, respectively. The
corresponding values of hpo to achieve these CRR are 0.96, 0.71 and 0.98, respectively.

The value of atmospheric pressure, pA, should also be specified in the unit set being used for the
analysis. If not specified, it will default to 101,300 Pascal.

The flag FirstCall is used to re-set the back-stress ratio history terms equal to the current stress
ratio, and to erase all fabric terms. The first time the model is called, the flag should be unspecified
or have a value of 0. The model will then initiate the back-stress ratios and all pertinent history terms
using the current state of stress. The flag is then set equal to 1.0 internally. If FirstCall is later set
equal to 0.0 using the property command in FLAC, this will cause the material to re-initiate all

60
internal terms, thereby re-setting the back-stress and stress ratio history terms and erasing all fabric
terms. FirstCall should usually be set to 0.0 just before initiating dynamic earthquake loading.
Otherwise, the model will retain memory of the loading during the static initiation of the model,
which may or may not be desired.

61
Table 4.1 – Primary input parameters (parameter names in square brackets correspond to the input
name to be used within FLAC)

Parameter
Comments
[FLAC name]
DR Apparent relative density: Primary variable controlling dilatancy
[D_r] and stress-strain response characteristics. Input as a fraction, not as
a percentage.

Commonly estimated based on CPT or SPT penetration resistances,

such as the following relationships used by Idriss and Boulanger
(2008):
 N1 60
DR 
Cd
with Cd = 46, and
0.264
q 
DR  0.465  c1N  1.063
C 
 dq 
with Cdq = 0.9.
Go Shear modulus coefficient: Primary variable controlling the small
[G_o] strain shear modulus, Gmax. Should be chosen to match estimated
or measured shear wave velocities according to Gmax =  Vs2.

A value for Go can be estimated based on the modified correlation

between SPT (N1)60 and Vs1 values shown in Figure 4.1. The value
of Go can thus be computed as,
Go  167  N1 60  2.5
hpo Contraction rate parameter: Primary variable that adjusts
[h_po] contraction rates and hence can be adjusted to obtain a target cyclic
resistance ratio, as commonly estimated based on CPT or SPT
penetration resistances and liquefaction correlations.
pA Atmospheric pressure in the unit set being used. Defaults to
[P_atm] 101,300 Pascals if not specified.
FirstCall Flag used to re-set the back-stress ratio history terms equal to the
[First_Call] current stress ratio, and to erase all fabric terms. First_Call should
usually be set to 0.0 at model initiation and/or just before initiating
dynamic earthquake loading. Otherwise, the model will retain
memory of the loading during the static initiation of the model,
which may or may not be desired.

62
Secondary input parameters

Secondary input parameters are those parameters for which default values have been developed
that will generally produce reasonable agreement with the trends in typical design correlations. The
user must, however, still confirm through element loading calibrations that the default parameters are
appropriate for their particular conditions. The secondary input parameters (16 in total) are listed in
Table 3.2, along with commentary on the recommended default values. The selected values for these
parameters have been embedded within the initialization section of the code and unless specified
otherwise by the user, they are applied by default.

All secondary parameters will take their default value unless the user specifies otherwise.

Table 4.2 – Secondary input parameters

Parameter
Comments
[FLAC name]
ho Variable that adjusts the ratio of plastic modulus to elastic modulus. The
[h_o] default value of ho=(0.25+DR)/2, with a minimum value of 0.30, was
chosen to provide reasonable G/Gmax and damping relationships for the
default value of Go. This variable may require adjustment in combination
with any adjustments to Go.
emax and emin The maximum and minimum void ratios affect the computation of
[e_max] density, and affect how volumetric strains translate into changes in
[e_min] relative state. Default values of 0.8 and 0.5, respectively, were adopted.
Refinements in these parameters for a practical problem may not be
necessary, as the calibration of other parameters will have a stronger
effect on monotonic or cyclic strengths.
nb Default value is 0.50. Controls dilatancy and thus also the peak effective
[n_b] friction angles. Note that Mb for loose of critical states is computed using
nb/4.
nd Default value is 0.10. Controls the stress-ratio at which contraction
[n_d] transitions to dilation, which is often referred to as phase transformation.
A value of 0.10 produces a phase transformation angle slightly smaller
than cv, which is consistent with experimental data. Note that Md for
loose of critical states is computed using 4nd.
Ado Default value is computed based on Bolton's dilatancy relationship at the
[A_do] time of initialization; typical values will be between 1.2 and 1.5.
zmax Default value is 0.28 exp(6.1DR), with an upper limit of 40. This returns
[z_max] values of 2.4, 8.0, and 27.2 at DR of 35, 55, and 75%, respectively. May
require varying if the relationship between DR and cyclic strength is
significantly different from that implied by the liquefaction correlation of
Idriss and Boulanger (2008) – i.e., if the value of hpo is substantially
different from the range of values used in these calibration examples.

63
 cz Default value is 250. Controls strain levels at which fabric affects become
[c_z] important.

c Default value varies with DR. The value is 5.0 for DR less than 35%, and
[c_e] linearly decreases to its minimum value of 1.0 at DR = 75%. Can be used
to adjust the rate of strain accumulation in undrained cyclic loading.

cv' Default value is 33 degrees.

[phi_cv]
 Default value is 0.30. For 1-D consolidation of an elastic material, the
[pois] value of Ko would correspond to,

Ko 
1
The default value for  results in a Ko value of 0.43 in 1-D consolidation.
CGD Default value is 2.0. The small-strain elastic modulus degrades with
[G_degr] increasing cumulative plastic deviator strains (zcum). The maximum
degradation approaches a factor of 1/CGD.
C Default value varies with Dr. The value is 0.0 for DR less than 55%, and
[c_alpha] linearly increases to its maximum value of 8.0 at DR = 75%. This variable
controls the effect that sustained static shear stresses have on plastic
modulus.
Q Default value is 10. Default value is for quartzitic sands per
[Q_bolt] recommendations of Bolton (1986).
R Default value is 1.5. Default value for quartzitic sands would be 1.0 per
[R_bolt] recommendations of Bolton (1986); a slight increase in R is used to lower
the critical state line to better approximate typical results for direct simple
shear loading.
m Default value is 0.01. Default value provides reasonable modeling and
[m_par] numerical stability.

Tracking variables

Many of the parameters internal to PM4Sand may be tracked for debugging purposes. The table
below lists six internal parameters that may be of interest. Other internal parameters that can be
tracked or plotted as contours include: pzp, zxp, pmin, pmin2, MM, alfa_11, alfa_12, max_G,
max_K, r_11, r_12, aIn_11, aIn_12, aInP_11, aInP_12, z_11, z_12, zcum, Cka1, Cka2, zpeak, zxpPk,
eqsum, evsum, LoadInd, Dilat, Kp, zabs, evol, eq_11, eq_22, eq_12, epsIncr and daxn.

64
Table 4.3 – Internal parameters available for tracking

Parameter [FLAC Name] Comments

Mb
Bounding surface stress ratio
[Mb]
Md
Dilation surface stress ratio
[Md]
Mcur
Current stress ratio
[Mcur]
G
Elastic shear modulus
[shearG]
K
Elastic bulk modulus
[bulkK]
ξR
Relative state parameter
[rsp]
Relative density, which evolves in response to
DR volumetric strains. Note that the input
[Dr] parameter D_r is an initial parameter and does
not evolve during an analysis.

Recall that internal parameters (properties) can be accessed using the z_prop command of FLAC. For
example, an algorithm to find the maximum bulk modulus in a model can be:

loop $i (1, izones)

loop $j (1,jzones)
$dummy = z_prop($i,$j,'bulkK')
$maxK = max($dummy,$maxK)
end_loop
end_loop

65
4.2 Example calibration and model responses for a range of element loading conditions

The response of the model is illustrated in this section by presenting simulation results for a set of
input parameters that were calibrated to emphasize realistic modeling of liquefaction behavior.
Results are presented for sands having initial apparent relative densities of 35%, 55%, and 75% with
corresponding SPT (N1)60 values of approximately 6, 14, and 26, respectively, based on the
correlations presented previously. All secondary input parameters were assigned the default values
summarized previously in Table 4.2. Values for Go were obtained using the previously presented
correlation between SPT (N1)60 values and overburden-corrected shear wave velocity VS1 (Figure
4.1). Values for hpo were obtained by matching the CRR values from direct simple shear (DSS)
simulations with the CRRM=7.5 values that were computed using the SPT-based liquefaction triggering
correlation by Idriss and Boulanger (2006, 2008); an SPT-based estimate of CRR for an M=7.5
earthquake and effective overburden stress of 1 atm was assumed to be approximately equal to the
CRR corresponding to 15 uniform loading cycles causing a peak shear strain of 3% in direct simple
shear loading. Back-stress ratio and fabric history terms were re-initialized, using FirstCall=0, prior
to the start of loading; This step was only important for the cyclic undrained loading cases where the
element was first consolidated under an applied horizontal shear stress. The model input parameters
for the examples presented in this section are summarized in Table 4.4 below.

Table 4.4. Input parameters for example element responses

Scenario field condition Model input parameters (a)

VS1 using CRRM=7.5
Dr (N1)60 Andrus & using Idriss & DR Go hpo
Stokoe (2000) Boulanger (2008)
0.35 6 144 0.090 0.35 476 0.96
0.55 14 171 0.147 0.55 677 0.71
0.75 26 196 0.312 0.75 890 0.98
(a)
All secondary input parameters were assigned the default values listed in Table 4.2.

Undrained cyclic loading

The undrained cyclic loading responses for the calibrated models are illustrated in Figures 4.2-
4.4. These figures show the stress-strain and stress-path responses for undrained uniform cyclic
loading in DSS with a vertical consolidation stress of 1 atm and initial static shear stress ratios () of
0.0, 0.1, and 0.2. Results for initial DR of 35%, 55%, and 75% are presented in Figures 4.2, 4.3, and
4.4, respectively. Close up views of the stress-strain responses for DR=35%, 55%, and 75% with an
initial static shear stress ratio  = 0.0 are presented in Figure 4.5.

The stress-strain responses for  = 0.0 illustrate the model's ability to progressively reach larger
and larger shear strains with continued cyclic loading, rather than locking up in a repeating loop as
many plasticity models do. The ability to simulate the progressive accumulation of shear strains

66
reflects the inclusion of the cumulative fabric terms, as described previously. The progressive
increases in peak shear strain after the soil has reached a peak excess pore pressure ratio (ru) greater
than 98% are realistic in magnitude.

The stress-strain responses with nonzero initial static shear stresses show a progressive
accumulation of shear strains in the direction of the initial static shear stress, with the rate and nature
of the stress-strain response also being reasonably realistic.

CRR versus number of loading cycles – Effect of DR and failure criterion

The CRR obtained for the calibrated models are summarized in Figure 4.6 showing the cyclic
stress ratio (CSR) required to cause an excess pore pressure ratio (ru) of 98% or single-amplitude
shear strains of 1% and 3% versus number of uniform loading cycles. These results are for DSS
loading with a vertical consolidation stress of 1 atm, an initial Ko of 0.5, and zero initial static shear
stress ratio (). The simulation results in this figure were fitted with a power law, for which the
exponent "b" is labeled beside each curve.

The slopes of these CRR versus number of loading cycles are in good agreement with typical
values obtained in laboratory testing studies. The exponent b is generally between 0.24 and 0.27 for
these simulations. For the experimental data in Figure 1., the exponent b ranges from a low of 0.1 for
one study on to a high of 0.34 for another. The ability of the model to produce reasonable slopes for
these curves is attributed primarily to the changes in the plastic modulus and dilatancy relationships
(Ziotopoulou and Boulanger 2012).

The slopes of the CRR versus number of loading cycle curves can be slightly adjusted by the
parameters nb and nd. For example, repeating the same simulations for DR=75% with nb=0.8 (versus
the value of 0.5 used herein) and with all other factors the same, increases the exponent b to values of
0.28 to 0.33. Ziotopoulou and Boulanger (2012) performed the same simulations using an earlier set
of calibration parameters and got values for the exponent b ranging from 0.26 to 0.36. Note, however,
that a greater value for nb also results in greater peak friction angles and changes other responses as
well, so such adjustments cannot be made independent of other features of behavior.

CRR versus number of loading cycles – Effect of confining stress

The effect of overburden stress on CRR for the calibrated models is illustrated in Figure 4.7
showing the CSR required to cause a single-amplitude shear strain of 3% versus number of uniform
loading cycles for different confining stresses. These results are for DSS loading with initial Ko=0.5,
initial static shear stress ratio () of 0.0, and vertical consolidation stresses of 1, 4, and 8 atm. The
cyclic strengths for DR=35% are the least affected by confining stress, while the cyclic strengths for
DR=75% are the most affected (reduced).

The equivalent K values from these simulations, with the CRR values compared at 15 uniform
loading cycles, are compared in Figure 4.8 to the relationships recommended by Boulanger and Idriss
(2004) based on the framework presented in Boulanger (2003b). The simulated effects of confining
stress are in good agreement, as expected since the expression for hpo was calibrated to this
relationship.

67
CRR versus number of loading cycles – Effect of sustained shear stress

Summary plots of the CSR required to cause a single-amplitude shear strain of 3% versus number
of uniform loading cycles are presented in Figure 4.9 for different values of initial static shear stress
ratio. Results are presented for sand at DR=35%, 55%, and 75% loaded in DSS with an initial
Ko=0.5, a vertical consolidation stress of 1atm, and with initial static shear stress ratios () of 0.0, 0.1,
0.2, and 0.3. The simulation results are reasonable in predicting that the presence of an initial static
shear stress ratio results in lower cyclic strengths for loose sands (e.g., the DR = 35% results) and
greater cyclic strengths for denser sands (e.g., the DR=75% results). The simulations are also
reasonable in that they show that this effect is actually dependent on the confining stress (as built into
the model by its dependence on relative state). However, the simulations for this calibration cause
rotations in the curves relating CRR to the number of uniform loading cycles for some conditions.
These types of responses have not been observed in experimental data, and thus this is an attribute of
the model that warrants further work.

The performance of the model simulations is further evaluated in Figure 4.10 by comparing the
same simulations for DR = 75% (run with the default value of C) against results obtained using C =
0.0, which effectively turns off the model terms that were added to account for the effects of shear
stress and fabric rotation. The simulations with C = 0.0 cause the CRR to decrease significantly with
increasing value of initial static shear stress ratio, which is contrary to experimental data for sands at
this range of relative states. Note that the parameter C has no effect on the results for DR = 35%
because its relative state (under the vertical stress of 1 atm) is below the reference level at which
stress ratio and fabric rotation effects are nonzero, and it has only a small effect on the results for DR
= 55%. Thus, the current model formulation improves the ability to approximate the effects of initial
static shear stress ratios, despite the limitations discussed above.

CRR versus number of loading cycles – Effect of Ko

Summary plots of the CSR required to cause a single-amplitude shear strain of 3% versus number
of uniform loading cycles are presented in Figure 4.11 for different values of the lateral earth pressure
coefficient at rest Ko (i.e., the ratio of horizontal to vertical effective stresses at the time of
consolidation). Results are presented for sand at DR=35%, 55%, and 75% loaded in DSS, a vertical
consolidation stress of 1atm, and with zero initial static shear stress ratio.

Drained monotonic loading

The response for drained monotonic loading in direct simple shear (DSS) and plane-strain
compression (PSC) for sand at DR of 35%, 55%, and 75% under vertical confining stresses of ¼, 1, 4,
and 16 atm is shown in Figures 4.12 and 4.13. The responses reasonably approximate the effects of
relative density and confining stress on both the stress-strain and volumetric strain responses. The
plots show the response up to shear strains of 10%, while the simulations tend to reach critical state
conditions at shear strains of 40-60%. The post-peak rate of strain-softening is dictated by the
dilation rate, which is constrained to approximate Bolton's (1986) stress-dilatancy relationship. The
simulated post-peak softening is slower than often observed in experimental results (e.g., Figure 1.9)
because drained laboratory experiments are often affected by strain localizations in dilating sands

68
(e.g., Desrues et al. 1996, Sadrekarimi and Olson 2010); The rate of strain-softening in a dilating zone
is much lower than represented by global measurements of stress and strain.

The peak effective friction angles from simulations of drained monotonic loading in DSS and
plane strain compression (PSC) are shown versus vertical consolidation stress in Figure 4.14 where
they are also compared to Bolton’s (1986) relationship for plane strain conditions for Q=10 and
R=1.5 (which are the default values of Q and R that have been selected for the model). The peak
friction angles are lower in DSS than in PSC because of the difference in how the friction angles are
computed for this plot. For PSC, the peak friction angle is computed based on the peak stress ratio
within the element, without any predetermined assumptions regarding the orientation of the plane on
which it will occur. For DSS loading, the peak friction angle was computed as the inverse tangent of
the peak stress ratio on the horizontal plane, following the same convention commonly used in
practice for interpreting such tests. In the DSS simulation, however, the horizontal plane was not the
plane of maximum stress obliquity, and therefore the interpreted peak friction angle is slightly lower
than the value obtained in PSC. Computationally, both the DSS and PSC mobilize similar peak
friction angles if the comparison is made only for the plane of maximum stress obliquity in both
simulations; In the DSS, however, the stress ratio on the horizontal plane in the DSS simulations is
often closer to sin() as opposed to tan(), which results in the apparent differences shown in
Figure 4.14. Despite these differences, the peak friction angles are reasonable and consistent with
typical design correlations (e.g., Kulhawy and Mayne 1990).

Undrained monotonic loading

The undrained monotonic loading in direct simple shear (DSS) for sand at DR of 35%, 55%, and
75% under vertical consolidation stresses of ¼, 1, 4, and 16 atm are shown in Figure 4.15, while the
same responses are shown with normalization by the vertical consolidation stress in Figure 3.16. The
stress-strain responses show strain hardening behavior at lower relative states than would be expected
based on the experimental results for reconstituted sands, such as presented by Yoshimine et al.
(1999). Experiments on loose reconstituted sands often show strain softening to some minimum shear
stress ratio (e.g., quasi-steady state condition) before beginning to strain harden, and that minimum
stress ratio is often in the range of 0.1 to 0.3. For the present calibration, the CRR for DR = 35%
sands under 1 atm of confining stress was targeted to be 0.090 based on a field-based liquefaction
correlation, and it was not possible to calibrate the model to match both the target CRR values and the
monotonic undrained strengths presented in Yoshimine et al. (1999). If the monotonic behavior was
more important than the CRR values, then a different calibration would be required.

Drained, strain-controlled, cyclic loading from small to large strains

Drained strain-controlled cyclic loading in DSS for sand at DR of 35%, 55%, and 75% under
vertical consolidation stresses of 1, 4, and 16 atm with Ko=1.0 are shown in Figures 4.17 to 4.19, with
results also shown for the equivalent modulus reduction (G/Gmax) and equivalent damping ratio
versus cyclic shear strain amplitude. Also shown on these figures are the modulus reduction and
equivalent damping ratio curves recommended for sands at different depths by EPRI (1993). The
simulated modulus reduction and equivalent damping ratio curves depend on the effective confining
stress in a pattern and magnitude that is consistent with empirical design correlations, such as the
ones by EPRI. The simulated modulus reduction curves for this calibration tend to be slightly higher
than the empirical curves, whereas the simulated equivalent damping ratios are in reasonable
69
agreement with the empirical curves over a fairly broad range of shear strain amplitudes. The model
response for this calibration avoids the problem common to many plasticity models of producing
excessively high equivalent damping ratios as shear strain amplitudes approach about one percent.

Drained, strain-controlled cyclic loading: Densification under large numbers of cycles

Drained strain-controlled cyclic loading in DSS for sand at DR of 35%, 55%, and 75% subjected
to 10 cycles at 1% shear strain under a vertical effective stress of 1 atm are presented in Figure 4.20
to illustrate the accumulation of volumetric strains with increasing number of constant-amplitude
strain cycles. The model response with this calibration produces volumetric strains that are about
twice the values expected based on the empirical data presented in Figure 1.12, although the general
pattern of stress-strain behavior and its dependency on DR and confining stress are reasonably
consistent with the empirical data. Alternative model calibrations can produce better agreement with
these behaviors, but they were generally found to require compromising the fit to the CRR
correlations.

Post-liquefaction reconsolidation strains

The volumetric strains that develop during post-liquefaction reconsolidation of sand are difficult
to model using the conventional separation of strains into elastic and plastic components because a
large portion of the post-liquefaction reconsolidation strains are due to sedimentation effects (i.e.,
volume reductions while the effective stresses remain close to zero) which are not easily incorporated
into either the elastic or plastic components of behavior. For example, it is common for many
plasticity-based constitutive models to predict reconsolidation volumetric strains from a condition of
ru=100% that are only a fraction of one percent, whereas experimental data show values ranging from
one to four percent for most relative densities (e.g., Figure 1.12).

Volumetric strains due to post-cyclic reconsolidation are plotted in Figure 4.21 versus the
maximum shear strain induced during undrained cyclic loading. Results are shown for sand at DR =
35%, 55%, and 75% loaded in DSS with an initial Ko=0.5, a vertical consolidation stress of 1 atm,
and zero initial static shear stress ratio. After cyclic loading to different maximum shear strains, the
horizontal shear stress was reduced to zero such that the excess pore pressure was near its maximum
possible value (e.g., ru was approximately 98% or larger for cases with maximum shear strains of 3%
or greater). The computed volumetric strains were less than about 0.25%, which are much smaller
than expected based on common experimental data.

The fact that most elastic-plastic constitutive models do not adequately model post-liquefaction
reconsolidation strains can be important for some practical problems. In the first version of this
model (Boulanger 2010), an approximate method for including the effects of sedimentation strains
was included. This approach was later found to lead to poor element behaviors in some boundary
value problems and thus was omitted from this version.

70
 300
Clean sand data in Andrus & Stokoe (2000)
Andrus & Stokoe (2000): Vs1=93.2(N1)0.231
Modified fit: Vs1=85(N1+2.5)0.25
260

Shear wave velocity, VS1 (m/s)

220

180

140

100
0 10 20 30 40 50
SPT (N1)60

Figure 4.1. Correlation between overburden-corrected shear wave velocity and

SPT penetration resistances in clean sands (after Andrus and Stokoe 2000).

71
 0.4 0.4

Shear stress ratio, /'vc

Shear stress ratio, /'vc

0.2 0.2

0 0

-0.2 -0.2
DR = 35%
'vo = 100 kPa  = 'vo = 0.0
-0.4 -0.4
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Shear strain (%) Vertical Effective Stress, 'v / 'vc

0.4 0.4
Shear stress ratio, /'vc

Shear stress ratio, /'vc

0.2 0.2

0 0

-0.2 -0.2
DR = 35%
'vo = 100 kPa  = 'vo = 0.1
-0.4 -0.4
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Shear strain (%) Vertical Effective Stress, 'v / 'vc

0.4 0.4
Shear stress ratio, /'vc

Shear stress ratio, /'vc

0.2 0.2

0 0

-0.2 -0.2
DR = 35%
'vo = 100 kPa  = 'vo = 0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Shear strain (%) Vertical Effective Stress, 'v / 'vc

Figure 4.2. Undrained cyclic DSS loading response for DR = 35% with vertical effective consolidation
stress of 1 atm and with initial static shear stress ratios of 0.0, 0.1, and 0.2.

72
 0.4 0.4

Shear stress ratio, /'vc

Shear stress ratio, /'vc

0.2 0.2

0 0

-0.2 -0.2
DR = 55%
'vo = 100 kPa  = 'vo = 0.0
-0.4 -0.4
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Shear strain (%) Vertical Effective Stress, 'v / 'vc

0.4 0.4
Shear stress ratio, /'vc

Shear stress ratio, /'vc

0.2 0.2

0 0

-0.2 -0.2
DR = 55%
'vo = 100 kPa  = 'vo = 0.1
-0.4 -0.4
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Shear strain (%) Vertical Effective Stress, 'v / 'vc

0.4 0.4
Shear stress ratio, /'vc

Shear stress ratio, /'vc

0.2 0.2

0 0

-0.2 -0.2
DR = 55%
'vo = 100 kPa  = 'vo = 0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Shear strain (%) Vertical Effective Stress, 'v / 'vc

Figure 4.3. Undrained cyclic DSS loading response for DR = 55% with vertical effective consolidation
stress of 1 atm and with initial static shear stress ratios of 0.0, 0.1, and 0.2.

73
 0.6 0.6

Shear stress ratio, /'vc

Shear stress ratio, /'vc

0.3 0.3

0 0

-0.3 -0.3
DR = 75%
'vo = 100 kPa  = 0.0
 = 'vo = 0.0
-0.6 -0.6
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Shear strain (%) Vertical Effective Stress, 'v / 'vc

0.6 0.6
Shear stress ratio, /'vc

Shear stress ratio, /'vc

0.3 0.3

0 0

-0.3 -0.3
DR = 75%
'vo = 100 kPa  = 'vo = 0.1
-0.6 -0.6
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Shear strain (%) Vertical Effective Stress, 'v / 'vc

0.6 0.6
Shear stress ratio, /'vc

Shear stress ratio, /'vc

0.3 0.3

0 0

-0.3 -0.3
DR = 75%
'vo = 100 kPa  = 'vo = 0.2
-0.6 -0.6
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Shear strain (%) Vertical Effective Stress, 'v / 'vc

Figure 4.4. Undrained cyclic DSS loading response for DR = 75% with vertical effective consolidation
stress of 1 atm and with initial static shear stress ratios of 0.0, 0.1, and 0.2.

74
 0.1
DR = 35%

Shear stress ratio, /'vc

'vo = 100 kPa
0.05

-0.05

-0.1
-2 -1 0 1 2
Shear strain (%)

0.2
DR = 55%
Shear stress ratio, /'vc

'vo = 100 kPa

0.1

-0.1

-0.2
-2 -1 0 1 2
Shear strain (%)

0.4
DR = 75%
Shear stress ratio, /'vc

'vo = 100 kPa

0.2

-0.2

-0.4
-2 -1 0 1 2
Shear strain (%)

Figure 4.5. Undrained cyclic DSS loading responses for DR = 35, 55, and 75% with a vertical effective
consolidation stress of 1 atm and without any initial static shear stress.

75
 0.6
'vo = 100 kPa
3% shear strain

Cyclic Stress Ratio

DR = 75%
0.4
Fit with b=
0.26
DR = 55%
0.2
0.29
DR = 35%
0.25
0
1 10 100
Number of uniform cycles

0.6
DR = 75% 'vo = 100 kPa
1% shear strain
Cyclic Stress Ratio

0.4

DR = 55%
0.20
0.2
0.25
DR = 35%
0.24
0
1 10 100
Number of uniform cycles
0.6
'vo = 100 kPa
DR = 75% ru > 98%
Cyclic Stress Ratio

0.4

0.24
DR = 55%

0.2 0.27

DR = 35% 0.25
0
1 10 100
Number of uniform cycles

Figure 4.6. Cyclic stress ratios versus number of equivalent uniform loading cycles in undrained DSS
loading to cause ru=98% or single-amplitude shear strains of 1% or 3% for DR = 35, 55, and 75% with a
vertical effective consolidation stress of 1 atm. Each set of CSR-N simulations was fit with a power
relationship and the exponent b labeled beside each curve.

76
 0.6
DR = 75%
3% shear strain

Cyclic Stress Ratio

= 0.0
0.4

'vc = 1 atm

0.2
4
8

0
1 10 100
Number of uniform cycles

0.6
DR = 55%
3% shear strain
Cyclic Stress Ratio

= 0.0
0.4

8 4 'vc = 1 atm

0.2

0
1 10 100
Number of uniform cycles

0.6
DR = 35%
3% shear strain
Cyclic Stress Ratio

= 0.0
0.4

0.2 4
'vc = 1 atm
8

0
1 10 100
Number of uniform cycles

Figure 4.7. Cyclic stress ratios versus number of equivalent uniform loading cycles in undrained DSS
loading to cause single-amplitude shear strain of 3% for DR = 35, 55, and 75% with vertical
effective consolidation stresses of 1, 4, and 8 atm.

77
 1.4

Relationships recommended by
1.2
Boulanger & Idriss (2004):

35%
0.8
K

55%
0.6 75%

Model Simulations
0.4 DR = 35 %
DR = 55 %
0.2
DR = 75 %

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Vertical Effective Stress, 'vc / Patm

Figure 4.8. Comparison of K factors, determined at 15 uniform loading cycles to cause 3% single-
amplitude shear strain, from simulations versus relationships recommended by Boulanger and Idriss
(2004).

78
 0.6
DR = 75%
3% shear strain

Cyclic Stress Ratio

'vo = 100 kPa
0.4


0.2 


0
1 10 100
Number of uniform cycles

0.6
DR = 55%
3% shear strain
Cyclic Stress Ratio

'vo = 100 kPa

0.4

0.2

0
1 10 100
Number of uniform cycles

0.6
DR = 35%
3% shear strain
Cyclic Stress Ratio

'vo = 100 kPa

0.4

0.2

0
1 10 100
Number of uniform cycles

Figure 4.9. Cyclic stress ratios versus number of equivalent uniform loading cycles in undrained DSS
loading to cause single-amplitude shear strain of 3% for DR = 35, 55, and 75% with vertical effective
consolidation stresses of 1 atm and initial static shear stress ratios of 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3.

79
 0.6


Cyclic Stress Ratio
0.4 


With default C= 8 :

0.2
DR = 75%
3% shear strain
'vo = 100 kPa
0
1 10 100
Number of uniform cycles
0.6


Cyclic Stress Ratio

0.4 


0.2 With C= 0 :

DR = 75%
3% shear strain
'vo = 100 kPa
0
1 10 100
Number of uniform cycles

Figure 4.10. Effect of stress ratio and fabric rotation terms on the relationship between cyclic stress ratio
and number of equivalent uniform loading cycles to cause single-amplitude shear strain of 3% in
undrained DSS loading for DR = 75% with vertical effective consolidation stress of 1 atm and initial static
shear stress ratios of 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3: Top graph is for the default value of C = 8.0, and bottom
graph is for C = 0.0 (set through inputting a negative value).

80
 0.6
0.8 1.2 DR = 75%
3% shear strain

Cyclic Stress Ratio

'vo = 100 kPa
0.4

0.2 Ko = 0.3
0.5

0
1 10 100
Number of uniform cycles

0.6
DR = 55%
3% shear strain
Cyclic Stress Ratio

'vo = 100 kPa

0.4

0.5 0.8 1.2

0.2
Ko = 0.3

0
1 10 100
Number of uniform cycles

0.6
DR = 35%
3% shear strain
Cyclic Stress Ratio

'vo = 100 kPa

0.4

0.2 0.5 0.8 1.2

Ko = 0.3

0
1 10 100
Number of uniform cycles

Figure 4.11. Cyclic stress ratios versus number of equivalent uniform loading cycles in undrained DSS
loading to cause single-amplitude shear strain of 3% for DR = 35, 55, and 75% with vertical effective
consolidation stresses of 1 atm and initial Ko values of 0.3, 0.5, 0.8, and 1.2.

81
 1.2 1.2 1.2

Shear stress ratio, /'vc

Shear stress ratio, /'vc

Shear stress ratio, /'vc

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4 0.4

DR = 35% DR = 55% DR = 75%
'vo = 0.25 , 1, 4, 16 & 64 atm 'vo = 0.25 , 1, 4, 16 & 64 atm 'vo = 0.25 , 1, 4, 16 & 64 atm
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%)
-4 -4 -4

Volumetric strain, v (%)

Volumetric strain, v (%)

Volumetric strain, v (%)

-2 -2 -2

0 0 0

2 2 DR = 55% 2
DR = 35% DR = 75%
'vo = 0.25 , 1, 4, 16 & 64 atm 'vo = 0.25 , 1, 4, 16 & 64 atm 'vo = 0.25 , 1, 4, 16 & 64 atm
4 4 4
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%)

Figure 4.12. Drained monotonic DSS loading responses for DR = 35, 55, and 75% with vertical effective confining stresses of ¼, 1, 4, 16, and 64
atm and Ko=0.5.

82
 8 8 8

Principal stress ratio, '1 / '3

Principal stress ratio, '1 / '3

Principal stress ratio, '1 / '3

DR = 35% DR = 55% DR = 75%
6 6 'vo = 0.25 , 1, 4, 16 & 64 atm 'vo = 0.25 , 1, 4, 16 & 64 atm
'vo = 0.25 , 1, 4, 16 & 64 atm 6

4 4 4

2 2 2

0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Axial strain a(%) Axial strain a(%) Axial strain a(%)
-4 -4 -4

Volumetric strain, v (%)

Volumetric strain, v (%)

Volumetric strain, v (%)

-2 -2 -2

0 0 0

2 2 2

DR = 35% DR = 55% DR = 75%

4 'vo = 0.25 , 1, 4, 16 & 64 atm 4 'vo = 0.25 , 1, 4, 16 & 64 atm 4 'vo = 0.25 , 1, 4, 16 & 64 atm

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Axial strain a(%) Axial strain a(%) Axial strain a(%)

Figure 4.13. Drained monotonic PSC (plane strain compression) loading responses for DR = 35, 55, and 75% with initial isotropic confining
stresses of ¼, 1, 4, 16, and 64 atm.

83
 50

' = 2 [ tan-1 (('1 / '3 )0.5) - 45o] DR = 75% Plane Strain Compression
45 cv= 33 o , Ko = 1.0

40 DR = 55%

35 DR = 35%

30

Bolton's Relationship (PSC)

25
' = 5IR

20
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Mean effective stress p' (atm)

50

Direct Simple Shear

45 cv= 33 o , Ko = 0.5
DR = 75%
' = tan-1 (h / 'v )

40
DR = 55%
35
DR = 35% arctan( sin( cv )) = 28.6o

30

25

20
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Vertical effective stress (atm)

Figure 4.14. Peak friction angles from drained monotonic PSC and DSS loading responses for DR = 35,
55, and 75% under effective confining stresses of ¼, 1, 4, 16, and 64 atm. For DSS loading, the friction
angle is presented using the conventional interpretations that the horizontal plane is the failure plane (the
actual plane of peak stress ratio is not horizontal in these simulations).

84
 2000 2000

DR = 35%
Shear stress (kPa)

Shear stress (kPa)

1600 1600
'vo = 0.25, 1, 4 & 16 atm

1200 1200

800 800

400 400

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Shear strain (%) Vertical Effective Stress, 'v (kPa)

2000 2000

DR = 55%
Shear stress (kPa)

Shear stress (kPa)

1600 1600
'vo = 0.25, 1, 4 & 16 atm

1200 1200

800 800

400 400

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Shear strain (%) Vertical Effective Stress, 'v (kPa)

2000 2000
Shear stress (kPa)

Shear stress (kPa)

1600 1600

1200 1200

800 800

400 DR = 75% 400

'vo = 0.25, 1, 4 & 16 atm
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Shear strain (%) Vertical Effective Stress, 'v (kPa)

Figure 4.15. Undrained monotonic DSS loading responses for DR = 35, 55, and 75% under
vertical effective consolidation stresses of ¼, 1, 4, and 16 atm.

85
 1.6 1.6
DR = 35%
'vo = 0.25, 1, 4 & 16 atm
1.2 1.2
/ 'vo

/ 'vo
0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4

0 0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Shear strain (%) 'v / 'vo
1.6 1.6
DR = 55%
'vo = 0.25, 1, 4 & 16 atm
1.2 1.2
/ 'vo

/ 'vo
0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4

0 0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Shear strain (%) 'v / 'vo
1.6 1.6
DR = 75%
'vo = 0.25, 1, 4 & 16 atm
1.2 1.2
/ 'vo

/ 'vo

0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4

0 0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Shear strain (%) 'v / 'vo

Figure 4.16. Normalized responses to undrained monotonic DSS loading for DR = 35, 55, and 75% under
vertical effective consolidation stresses of ¼, 1, 4, and 16 atm.

86
 80 1.2

1
Shear stress (kPa)

40
0.8

G / Gmax
0 0.6

0.4
Dashed lines:
-40 EPRI (1993)
DR = 35% 0.2 for depths of
'vo = 100 kPa 0-6m & 36-76m
-80 0
-4 -2 0 2 4 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%)

200 60

Solid lines:
Simulations for
Shear stress (kPa)

100 'vo = 100, 400 & 1600 kPa

40

( % )
0
20

-100
DR = 35%
'vo = 400 kPa 0

-200
-4 -2 0 2 4 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%)

Figure 4.17. Drained strain-controlled cyclic DSS loading responses for DR = 35% under
vertical effective consolidation stresses of 1, 4, and 16 atm.

87
 100 1.2

1
Shear stress (kPa)

50
0.8

G / Gmax
0 0.6

0.4
Dashed lines:
-50 EPRI (1993)
DR = 55% 0.2 for depths of
'vo = 100 kPa 0-6m & 36-76m
-100 0
-4 -2 0 2 4 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%)

300 60

Solid lines:
200 Simulations for
Shear stress (kPa)

'vo = 100, 400 & 1600 kPa

40
100

0 ( % )
20
-100

DR = 55%
-200 0
'vo = 400 kPa

-300
-4 -2 0 2 4 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%)

Figure 4.18. Drained strain-controlled cyclic DSS loading responses for DR = 55% under
vertical effective consolidation stresses of 1, 4, and 16 atm.

88
 120 1.2

80 1
Shear stress (kPa)

40 0.8

G / Gmax
0 0.6

-40 0.4 Dashed lines:

EPRI (1993)
-80 DR = 75% 0.2 for depths of
'vo = 100 kPa 0-6m & 36-76m

-120 0
-4 -2 0 2 4 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%)

400 60

Solid lines:
Simulations for
Shear stress (kPa)

200 'vo = 100, 400 & 1600 kPa

40

( % )
0
20

DR = 75%
-200
'vo = 400 kPa
0

-400
-4 -2 0 2 4 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%)

Figure 4.19. Drained strain-controlled cyclic DSS loading responses for DR = 75% under
vertical effective consolidation stresses of 1, 4, and 16 atm.

89
 -2 -2 -2

Cycle 1 Cycle 1 Cycle 1

0 0 0

Vertical strain, v (%)

Vertical strain, v (%)

Vertical strain, v (%)

2 2 2

4 4 4

6 6 6

Drained Simple Shear Drained Simple Shear Drained Simple Shear

DRo = 35%, 'vo = 100 kPa DRo = 55%, 'vo = 100 kPa DRo = 75%, 'vo = 100 kPa
8 8 8
-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2
Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%)

Figure 4.20. Volumetric strains during drained strain-controlled cyclic DSS loading for DR = 35, 55, and 75% with a
vertical effective consolidation stress of 1 atm.

90
 0.4

Undrained Cyclic DSS, 'vo= 100 kPa , = 0, Ko = 0.5

Volumetric strain due to post-cyclic
followed by reconsolidation to 'vo

0.3
reconsolidation, v (%)

DR = 35%

0.2
DR = 55%

DR = 75%
0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Maximum shear strain during undrained loading, max (%)

Figure 4.21. Volumetric strain due to post-cyclic reconsolidation versus the maximum shear strain induced
during undrained cyclic DSS loading

91
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The PM4Sand (version 2) plasticity model presented herein is built upon the basic framework
of the stress-ratio controlled, critical state compatible, bounding surface plasticity model for sand
presented by Dafalias and Manzari (2004). A series of modifications and additions to the model
were incorporated by Boulanger (2010; version 1) and further herein (version 2) to improve its
ability to approximate the stress-strain responses important to geotechnical earthquake
engineering practice; in essence, the model was calibrated at the equation level to provide for
better approximation of the trends observed in empirical correlations commonly used in practice.
These constitutive modifications included:

 revising the fabric formation/destruction to depend on plastic shear rather than plastic
volumetric strains;
 adding fabric history and cumulative fabric formation terms;
 modifying the plastic modulus relationship and making it dependent on fabric;
 modifying the dilatancy relationships to provide more distinct control of volumetric
contraction versus expansion behavior;
 providing a constraint on the dilatancy during volumetric expansion so that it is consistent
with Bolton’s (1986) dilatancy relationship;
 modifying the elastic modulus relationship to include dependence on stress ratio and
fabric history;
 modifying the logic for tracking previous initial back-stress ratios (i.e., loading history
effect);
 recasting the critical state framework to be in terms of a relative state parameter index;
 simplifying the formulation by restraining it to plane strain without Lode angle
dependency for the bounding and dilation surfaces; and
 providing default values for all but three primary input parameters.
The three primary model input parameters are: the shear modulus coefficient, Go, which
should be calibrated to the estimated or measured in-situ shear wave velocity; the contraction rate
parameter, hpo which is used to calibrate to the estimated in-situ cyclic resistance ratio; and an
apparent DR which affects the peak drained and undrained strengths and the rate of strain
accumulation during cyclic loading.

The model (version 2) was implemented as a user defined material in a dynamic link library
for use with the commercial program FLAC (Itasca 2011). The implementation includes an
improved numerical procedure for working with the mixed discretization scheme of FLAC.

The behavior of the model was illustrated by simulations of element loading tests covering a
broad range of conditions, including drained and undrained, cyclic and monotonic loading under
a range of initial relative densities, confining stresses, and initial shear stress conditions. The
simulations presented in this report were completed using the dynamic link library (DLL) version
modelpm4s003.dll compiled on May 15, 2012. The model is shown to provide reasonable
approximations of desired behaviors and to be relatively easy to calibrate.

92
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are indebted to Professors Bruce Kutter and Yannis Dafalias for their discussions
and insights regarding the formulation and implementation of constitutive models. Robbie Jaeger
was instrumental to the development of the dynamic link library. The beta versions of the model
were extensively utilized by Ronnie Kamai, Jack Montgomery and Professor Noriaki Sento,
whose feedback resulted in improvements to the model and this manual. Comments and results
from trial applications by Lelio Mejia, Erik Newman, Richie Armstrong, Jian Hu, and Faiz
Makdisi were extremely helpful and are also greatly appreciated.

REFERENCES

Andrianopoulos, K.I., Papadimitriou, A.G., and Bouckovalas, G.D. (2009). “Explicit integration
of bounding surface model for the analysis of earthquake soil liquefaction.” International J. of
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, DOI 10.1002/nag.875.

Andrus, R.D., and Stokoe, K.H. (2000). "Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave
velocity." J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE 126(11), 1015–025.

Arai, H. (2006). "Detection of subsurface Vs recovery process using microtremor and weak
ground motion records in Ojiya, Japan." Third International Conference on Urban Earthquake
Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.

Beaty, M. (2009). "Summary of UBCSand Constitutive Model: Versions 904a and 904aR." Short
Course on Seismic Deformation Analyses of Embankment Dams Considering Liquefaction
Effects, September 22-24, 2009, Davis, California.

Been, K., and Jefferies, M. G. (1985). "A state parameter for sands." Géotechnique 35(2), 99–
112.

Bolton, M. D. (1986). "The strength and dilatancy of sands." Géotechnique 36(1), 65–78.

Boulanger, R. W. (2010). "A sand plasticity model for earthquake engineering applications."
Report No. UCD/CGM-10-01, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA, 77 pp.

Boulanger, R. W., (2003a). "Relating K to relative state parameter index." J. Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE 129(8), 770–73.

Boulanger, R. W. (2003b). "High overburden stress effects in liquefaction analyses." J.

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE 129(12), 1071–082.

Boulanger, R. W., and Idriss, I. M. (2004). "State normalization of penetration resistances and
the effect of overburden stress on liquefaction resistance." Proc., 11th Intl. Conf. on Soil

93
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, and 3rd Intl. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering, Doolin et al., eds, Stallion Press, Vol. 2, pp. 484-491.

Boulanger, R. W., and Idriss, I. M. (2011). "Cyclic failure and liquefaction: Current issues." 5th
International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Santiago, Chile, Jan 10-13.

Boulanger, R. W., Kamai, R., and Ziotopoulou, K. (2011). "Numerical modeling of liquefaction
effects." Proc., Effects of Surface Geology on Seismic Motion, 4th IASPEI / IAEE International
Symposium, August 23-26, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA.

Byrne, P. M., Park, S. S., Beaty, M., Sharp, M., Gonzalez, L., Abdoun, T. 2004. "Numerical
modeling of liquefaction and comparison with centrifuge tests." Canadian Geotechnical Journal.
41 (2): 193-211.

Cubrinovski, M., and Ishihara, K. (1998). "State concept and modified elastoplasticity for sand
modelling." Soils and Foundations; 38(4): 213-225.

Dafalias, Y. F. (1986). "Bounding surface plasticity. I: Mathematical foundation and

hypoplasticity." J. Engineering Mechanics, 112(9), 966-987.

Dafalias, Y. F., and Manzari, M. T. (2004). "Simple plasticity sand model accounting for fabric
change effects." Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 130(6), 622-634.

Dawson, E. M., W. H. Roth, S. Nesarajah, G. Bureau, and C. A. Davis. (2001). "A practice
oriented pore pressure generation model." Proceedings, 2nd FLAC Symposium on Numerical
Modeling in Geomechanics. Oct. 29-31, Lyon, France.

Desrues, J., Chambon, R., Mokni, M., and Mazerolle, F. (1996). "Void ratio evolution inside
shear bands in triaxial sand specimens studied by computed tomography.” Géotechnique, 46(3),
529–546.

Duku, P. M., Stewart, J. P., and Whang, D. H. (2008). "Volumetric strains of clean sands subject
to cyclic loads." J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE, 134(8), 1073-1085.

Electric Power Research Institute (1993). Guidelines for site specific ground motions, Rept. TR-
102293, 1-5, Pala Alto, California.

Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. (2006). "Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating

liquefaction potential during earthquakes." J. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Eng. 26, 115–30.

Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. (2008). Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Monograph
MNO-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 261 pp.

Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. (2010). "SPT-based liquefaction triggering procedures."

Report UCD/CGM-10/02, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
California, Davis, CA, 259 pp.

94
Ishihara, K. (1993). "Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes." Géotechnique 43(3),
351–415.

Ishihara, K., and Yoshimine, M. (1992). "Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following
liquefaction during earthquakes." Soils and Foundations 32(1), 173–88.

Itasca (2011). FLAC – Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua, Version 7.0, Itasca Consulting
Group, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Kamai, R. (2011). "Liquefaction-induced shear strain localization processes in layered soil

profiles". PhD dissertation, University of California, Davis, 259pp.

Kamai, R. and Boulanger, R. W. (2012). "Single-element simulations of partial-drainage effects

under monotonic and cyclic loading." Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 35,
29-40.

Konrad, J.-M. (1988). "Interpretation of flat plate dilatometer tests in sands in terms of the state
parameter." Géotechnique 38(2), 263–77.

Kulhawy, F. H., and Mayne, P. W., 1990. Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation
Design, Report EPRI EL-6800, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.

Kutter, B. L., and Chen, Y.-R. (1997). “Constant p’ and constant volume friction angles are
different.” ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, 20(3), 304-316.

Lee, K. L., and Seed, H. B. (1967). "Drained strength characteristics of sands." J. Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Div., ASCE 93(SM6), 117–41.

Li, X. S., and Wang, Y. (1998). "Linear representation of steady-state line for sand." J.
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 124(12), 1215-1217.

Manzari, M. T., and Dafalias, Y. F. (1997). "A critical state two-surface plasticity model for
sand." Géotechnique, 47(2), 255-272.

Marti, J. and Cundall, P.A. (1982). "Mixed discretization procedure for accurate solution of
plasticity problems." Int. J. Num. Methods and Anal. Methods in Geomechanics, 6, 129-139.

Matsuya, A., Kazama, M., Sento, N. and Uzuoka, R. (2004). "Effect of initial shear stress on
reconsolidation characteristics of sand subjected undrained cyclic shear." The Japanese
Geotechnical Engineering Society, Proceedings of the 39th Japan National Conference on
Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 497-498, July (in Japanese)

Papadimitriou, A. G., Bouckovalas, G. D., and Dafalias, Y. F. (2001). "Plasticity model for sand
under small and large cyclic strains." J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
127(11), 973-983.

Richart, F. E., Jr., Hall, J. R., and Woods, R. D. (1970). "Vibration of soils and foundations."
International series in theoretical and applied mechanics, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

95
Rowe, P. W. (1962). "The stress-dilatancy relation for static equilibrium of an assembly of
particles in contact." Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 269, 500-527.

Sadrekamiri, A, and Olson, S. A. (2010). "Shear band formation observed in ring shear tests on
sandy soils." J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 366-375.

Schofield, A. N., and Wroth, C. P. (1968). Critical state soil mechanics, McGraw-Hill, New
York.

Silver, M. L., and Seed, H. B. (1971). "Volume changes in sand during cyclic loading." J. Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Div., ASCE 97(SM9), 1171–182.

Wang, Z. L., Dafalias, Y. F., and Shen, C. K. (1990). "Bounding surface hypoplasticity model for
sand." J. Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 116(5), 983-1001.

Yang, Z., A. Elgamal and E. Parra, (2003). "Computational model for cyclic mobility and
associated shear deformation." J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
129(12), 1119-1127.

Yoshimine, M., Robertson, P. K., and Wride, C. E. (1999). “Undrained shear strength of clean
sands to trigger flow liquefaction.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36, 891-906.

Youd, T. L. (1972). "Compaction of sands by repeated straining." J. Soil Mechanics and

Foundations Div., ASCE 98(SM7), 709–25.

Yu, P., and Richart, F. E., Jr. (1984). "Stress ratio effects on shear modulus of dry sands." J.
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 110(3), 331-345.

Ziotopoulou, K. (2010). "Evaluating model uncertainty against strong motion records at

liquefiable sites", Masters thesis, University of California, Davis, 294pp.

Ziotopoulou, K., Boulanger, R. W., and Kramer, S. L. (2012). "Site response analyses of
liquefying sites." Geo-Congress 2012: State of the Art and Practice in Geotechnical Engineering,
R. D. Hyrciw, A. Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, and N. Yesiller, eds., Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 225, ASCE Geo-Institute, 1799-1808.

Ziotopoulou, K., and Boulanger, R. W. (2012). "Constitutive modeling of duration and

overburden effects in liquefaction evaluations." Proc., Second International Conference on
Performance-based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Taormina, Italy, May 28-
30, paper 03.10.

96