UBCSAND UDM Documentation

UBCSAND CONSTITUTIVE MODEL
Version 904aR

Documentation Report:
UBCSAND Constitutive Model on Itasca UDM Web Site

by
Michael H. Beaty, PhD, PE, GE
Beaty Engineering LLC
and
Prof. Peter M. Byrne, PhD, P.Eng.
University of British Columbia
February, 2011

Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
2 Description of UBCSAND Version 904a ................................................................... 2
2.1 Elastic Response .......................................................................................... 2
2.2 Plastic Response .......................................................................................... 3
3 Description of UBCSAND Version 904aR ................................................................ 7
3.1 Static analysis mode .................................................................................. 12
4 Single Element Behavior of UBCSAND 904aR ....................................................... 13
4.1 Typical stress‐strain and stress path behavior ......................................... 13
4.2 Cyclic strength curve ................................................................................. 18
4.3 Weighting curve ........................................................................................ 19
4.4 Effect of initial static shear stress ............................................................. 21
4.5 Modulus reduction and damping behavior .............................................. 25
4.6 Effect of confining stress ........................................................................... 28
4.7 Effect of Ko ................................................................................................ 30
4.8 Rate of excess pore pressure generation and volumetric strain .............. 33
4.9 Comparison to cyclic DSS data on Fraser River sand ................................ 34
5 Post‐earthquake analysis ...................................................................................... 43
5.1 Revised ru computation ............................................................................ 44
6 Case History Comparison ...................................................................................... 45
6.1 Upper San Fernando Dam ......................................................................... 45
7 References ............................................................................................................ 65
8 Appendices ............................................................................................................ 67
Appendix 1: Additional references for UBCSAND ............................................... 67
Appendix 2: Generic input parameters for UBCSAND 904aR ............................. 69

UBCSAND Constitutive Model version 904aR February 2011
1 Introduction
UBCSAND is an effective stress plasticity model for use in advanced stress‐deformation
analyses of geotechnical structures. The model was developed primarily for sand‐like
soils having the potential for liquefaction under seismic loading (e.g., sands and silty
sands with a relative density less than about 80%). The model predicts the shear stress‐
strain behavior of the soil using an assumed hyperbolic relationship, and estimates the
associated volumetric response of the soil skeleton using a flow rule that is a function of
the current stress ratio . The model can be used in a fully‐coupled fashion where the
mechanical and groundwater flow calculations are performed simultaneously.
One of the first uses of UBCSAND was for predicting the behavior of the CANLEX
(Canadian Liquefaction Experiment) embankments. The fills were rapidly constructed on
loose tailing deposits to create a liquefaction response (Puebla, et al., 1997). The model
was soon adapted to seismic evaluations and applied to the response analysis of the
Wildlife Site and the Superstition Hills Earthquake of 1987 (Beaty and Byrne, 1998). The
model continued to be refined after these early analyses.
The first version of UBCSAND that was widely used for seismic analyses was completed
in 2002 and became known as UBCSAND 904a. This version has seen considerable use
and scrutiny since its development, and has been used as the base version for several
modified codes. One of these modifications, version 904aR, was developed during the
evaluation of Success Dam in California to improve the behavior of the model under
certain types of loading. Particular focus was given to the prediction of excess pore
pressures when significant static shear stresses were present.
This document presents an overview of the 904a version of UBCSAND, a description of
the changes made for the 904aR version, and an account of the behavior of the revised
model in terms of element test simulations and the back‐analyses of a case history.
Page | 1
2 Description of UBCSAND Version 904a
Cyclic shear strains induce plastic volume compaction in granular soils. Martin et al.
(1975) presented quantitative data in their landmark paper and showed that the
amount of compaction per cycle is proportional to the cyclic shear strain amplitude and
accumulated volume compaction, and is independent of normal effective stress. They
also showed that the pore pressure generated per cycle is dependent on the plastic
volumetric strain, the rebound modulus of the soil, and the stiffness of the pore fluid.
The response of sand is controlled by the skeleton behavior. A fluid (air water mix) in
the pores of the sand acts as a volumetric constraint on the skeleton if drainage is
curtailed. It is this constraint that causes the pore pressure rise that can lead to
liquefaction. Provided the skeleton or drained behavior is appropriately modeled under
monotonic and cyclic loading conditions, and the stiffness of the pore fluid and drainage
are accounted for, the liquefaction response can be predicted. This is the approach
incorporated into UBCSAND.
UBCSAND is a constitutive model that directly estimates the response of the soil
skeleton to general increments of loading. The response of the pore fluid is coupled to
the skeleton response through the bulk modulus of the fluid. UBCSAND is based on
classic plasticity theory and the characteristic sand behavior observed in laboratory tests
under monotonic and cyclic loading conditions. The UBCSAND model and its uses have
been documented in many papers, including those listed in Appendix 1.
2.1 Elastic Response
The elastic component of response is assumed to be isotropic and specified by a shear
modulus, Ge, and a bulk modulus, Be, as follows:
ne

[1] G 
e
K Ge  Pa   
 Pa 
[2] Be    Ge
e
where K G is a shear modulus number that depends on the relative density
and varies from about 500 for loose sand to 2000 for dense sand,
Pa is atmospheric pressure in the chosen units,
  is the mean stress in the plane of loading equal to ( x   y ) / 2 ,
ne varies between 0.4 and 0.6, or approximately 0.5, and
 depends on the elastic Poisson’s ratio which is in the range 0.0 ~
0.2 (Hardin 1978) with the result that  varies between 2/3 and
4/3 or is approximately unity.
Page | 2
2.2 Plastic Response
Plastic strains are controlled by the yield surface and flow rule. The yield surface is
represented by a radial line from the origin in stress space as shown in Figure 1. For first
time shear loading, the yield surface is controlled by the current stress state, point A in
Figure 1. As the shear stress increases, the stress ratio  (   /  ) increases and causes
the stress point to move to point B.  and   are the shear and normal effective
stresses on the plane of maximum shear stress. The yield surface is dragged to the new
location passing through point B and the origin. This results in plastic strains, both shear
and volumetric. The plastic shear strain increment, d p , is related to the change in
shear stress ratio, d , as shown in Figure 2 and can be expressed as
1
[3] d p
  d
G /
p
where G p is the plastic shear modulus and, assuming a hyperbolic relationship
between  and  p , is given by:

[4] G p  G ip  ( 1   R f ) 2
f
is the plastic modulus at a low level of stress ratio (   0 ) ,
p
where Gi
 f is the stress ratio at failure and equals sin  f ,
 f is the peak friction angle, and
R f is the failure ratio used to truncate the best fit hyperbolic
relationship and prevent the over‐prediction of strength at failure.
R f generally varies between 0.7 and 0.98 and decreases with
increasing relative density.

Shear Stress, 
Yield Locus
Yield Surface
B
Normal Effective Stress,  

Figure 1. Yield surface in UBCSAND.

Page | 3
Stress Ratio, (= /’ )

Gp /
B
A
d p
Plastic Shear Strain,  p

Figure 2. Plastic strain increment and plastic modulus.

The associated increment of plastic volumetric strain, d v , is related to the increment
p
of plastic shear strain, d p , through the flow rule as follows:

[5] d vp  (sin  cv  )  d p

where  cv is the constant volume friction angle or phase transformation angle. This flow
rule can be derived from energy considerations and is similar to stress dilation theory
(Rowe 1962; Matsuoka and Nakai 1977).
Yield loci and the corresponding direction of the plastic strains resulting from the flow
rule are shown in Figure 3. Significant shear‐induced plastic compaction occurs at low
stress ratios, while no compaction is predicted at stress ratios corresponding to  cv . At
stress ratios greater than  cv , shear induced plastic expansion or dilation is predicted.
This simple flow rule is in close agreement with the characteristic behavior of sand
observed in laboratory element testing. Upon unloading, defined as a reduction in the
magnitude of  , the sand is assumed to behave elastically and no plastic strains are
generated.
The sign of the stress ratio is controlled by the sign of the shear stress on the horizontal
plane. This is a simplifying assumption but recognizes the importance of the horizontal
plane in many geotechnical structures (i.e., the importance of simple shear loading).
Both positive and negative values of the maximum stress ratio are separately tracked.
This allows the plastic behavior to include aspects of both kinematic and isotropic
hardening.
Page | 4
The plastic shear modulus discussed above is applicable for virgin or first time loading.
Whenever the current load increment pushes the yield surface outside the previous
maximum stress ratio limits, this increment of loading is considered first time loading.
When an increment of loading occurs within the previous maximum stress ratio limits,
the sand is assumed to behave plastically but with a plastic modulus that is several times
stiffer than for first time loading. The maximum stress ratio limits are defined as the
largest positive and negative values of  that have occurred since the start of loading.
Not all loading increments generate plastic strains in version 904a. Unloading occurs
when there is a decrease in the magnitude of the stress ratio. If the stress ratio should
then begin to increase in magnitude before there has been a change in the sign of the
stress ratio, then this increment of loading is considered a reloading increment.
Reloading increments are assumed to respond elastically with no plastic shear or
volumetric strains. Reloading occurs until the stress ratio equals the previous maximum
stress ratio that occurred during the current loading cycle. Once this stress ratio has
been achieved, subsequent loading increments generate plastic strains This definition of
reloading is shown schematically on Figure 4.

, dp
cv
Plastic Potential Increment
  , d vp

Figure 3. Directions of plastic strains associated with location of yield surface.
Page | 5
Loading
Loading Unloading
Stress Ratio
Unloading
Loading
Reloading
Time
Loading Unloading

Figure 4. Stress ratio history showing loading, unloading, and reloading.
Page | 6
3 Description of UBCSAND Version 904aR
Revisions to version 904a were prompted by analyses of Success Dam in California. The
selection of an appropriate constitutive model for these analyses followed a rigorous
evaluation made by the Sacramento District Office of the Army Corps of Engineers. This
evaluation process benefited from the general guidance and input of the advisory panel
for the Success Dam project. It also led to several changes to the constitutive model.
Preliminary analyses of Success Dam using the 904a version of UBCSAND showed a
significantly smaller zone of high excess pore pressure beneath the upstream shell of
the dam than was anticipated. Concerns regarding the extent of predicted high pore
pressures were supported by several independent evaluations: 1) estimates of pore
pressure generation based on results from Quad4 analyses, 2) estimates of pore
pressure generation from a cycle‐counting FLAC model developed by URS, and 3) and an
examination of shear stress histories predicted by the UBCSAND model in key elements.
The initial static shear stress, or static bias, was found to have an unexpected influence
on the generation of excess pore pressure.
Version 904a includes the simplifying assumption that cycles of partial unloading and
reloading are elastic. These cycles are defined as ones where the shear stress drops and
then increases but there is no reversal in the direction of the shear stress. For many
locations beneath the upstream shell of Success Dam, the initial static shear stress is
larger than the magnitude of most cyclic loading cycles. In other words, many of the
larger shear stress cycles were considered partial unload‐reload cycles and did not
contribute to the excess pore pressure. An example shear stress history computed for
Success Dam beneath the upstream shell is shown in Figure 5.
UBCSAND was modified to improve response predictions for cases with significant static
bias. This was accomplished using published relationships between cyclic strength ratio
and static bias as a guide. Although the effect of static bias on liquefaction resistance is
somewhat uncertain, it is typically addressed in simplified procedures through a factor
termed Kα. Two relationships for Kα were proposed by Harder and Boulanger (1997) and
Idriss and Boulanger (2003). These relationships were based on a limited set of simple
shear test results which were considered to provide the most reliable data. These plots
represent the current state of practice for the evaluation of slopes and embankments.
The modifications to UBCSAND for version 904aR were governed by two criteria:
1. capture the general trends incorporated into the Kα plots, and
2. limit changes to the structure, assumptions, input parameters, and behavior of
the 904a version.
Page | 7
1000
Significant pore pressure generation
Shear Stress on Horizontal
500
0
Plane (psf)
Example of significant cycles

-500 where pore pressures are not
generated
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec)

Figure 5. Example of predicted shear stress beneath upstream shell of Success Dam using
UBCSAND version 904a.
The primary changes made to UBCSAND are summarized below:
1. Partial unload‐reload cycles generate plastic volumetric strains
In version 904a, the location of the yield surface is not modified when an
element unloads until a shear stress reversal occurs. For partial unload‐reload
cycles (i.e., no stress reversal), the response is entirely elastic until the stress
state once again reaches the yield surface. For version 904a, no plastic
volumetric strains are generated during these partial unload‐reload cycles.
In version 904aR, the location of the yield surface is now modified during
increments of unloading. The yield surface systematically drops as the
magnitude of the mobilized stress ratio  decreases. The yield surface lags
slightly behind the decreasing stress state so that a small elastic zone separates
the stress state and the yield surface. Adjusting the yield surface in this way
allows for the generation of plastic volumetric strains when the element is
reloaded even if a stress reversal has not occurred. The generation of pore
pressures during partial unload‐reload cycles is supported by laboratory testing,
such as the data discussed in Section 4.9.
The plastic shear stiffness associated with reloading is controlled by the internal
variable m_urstif, which directly factors the plastic shear modulus. This factor
Page | 8
was needed in order to reasonably predict the behavior shown in the Kα charts.
The Kα factor relates the cyclic resistance with no static shear bias (α = 0) to the
cyclic resistance at a static bias of α. The static bias α is defined as the initial
shear stress on the x‐y plane divided by the initial vertical effective stress.
The magnitude of m_urstif is a function of the relative change in . m_urstif is
equal to a minimum of 1.0 at the instant of a stress reversal and smoothly
increases to a relatively large factor for small unloading cycles. The relationship
used to define m_urstif was developed by matching model predictions to
expected Kα behavior using direct simple shear (DSS) simulations.
2. Plastic shear stiffness modified for non‐symmetric loading cycles
In versions 904a and 904aR, no plastic strains are generated during increments
of unloading (i.e., decreasing stress ratio η). Any plastic strains that should occur
during unloading are assumed to be accounted for during the subsequent
loading cycle after a shear stress reversal. In other words, the actual plastic
behavior can be approximated if the plastic shear modulus during loading is
made somewhat softer. This will induce additional plastic strains during loading
to account for any strains that were missed during the unloading increments.
This approximation is generally reasonable, although it did produce some
undesirable trends in the predicted Kα behavior. The primary motivation for this
modification was to smooth the predicted relationship between static bias and
liquefaction resistance.
The plastic shear stiffness is now modified to account for the effects of non‐
symmetry. Symmetry is evaluated at stress reversals by computing the ratio of
the peak stress ratio  from the previous two half‐cycles of loading (i.e.,
ratio_k = peak_k‐1 / peak_k‐2). If ratio_k  1 then the previous full cycle of loading is
considered to be similar to a symmetric load cycle and the plastic shear stiffness
is not adjusted. If ratio_k < 1 then the load cycle is considered non‐symmetric
and the plastic shear modulus is stiffened using the internal parameter m_sym.
The adjustment factor m_sym ranges between 1.0 for symmetric cycles to a
maximum of 1.3 to 1.9 for highly non‐symmetric cycles. This definition for
symmetry is illustrated in Figure 6.
3. Post‐dilation softener made a function of accumulated dilative strains
Plastic dilative strains are used by UBCSAND to identify elements that will
experience significant plastic volumetric contraction upon a shear stress reversal.
This plastic volumetric contraction is induced in the model by significantly
softening the plastic shear modulus after a stress reversal. In version 904a, the
required amount of softening is based solely on the plastic dilative strain
Page | 9
experienced during the previous half cycle. This was revised in version 904aR so
that the magnitude of softening is based on the accumulated amount of plastic
dilation that the element has experienced since the start of loading. This dilation
is accumulated only when the stress ratio is close to the maximum allowed stress
ratio (i.e., m_ratf).
This revised definition assumes that plastic dilative strains cause the soil skeleton
to soften, and that this damage to the skeleton endures beyond the current load
cycle. This change in defining the softener allows for a more gradual transition
into liquefied behavior. This was particularly important for simulating the
response of denser sands under a static bias.
The post‐dilation softener is a function of both the loading symmetry and the
accumulated dilative strains. The internal parameters m_symdil and m_dilsft address
these two aspects. The functional relationships for these factors were derived through
DSS simulations and comparison to expected liquefaction triggering and Kα behavior.
ratio = 1 ratio > 1

peak_k-3
Stress Ratio .
peak_k-1
peak_k-2
peak_k
ratio < 1
Time
Note: ηratio ≥ 1 : previous full cycle considered symmetric.
ηratio < 1 : previous full cycle considered non‐symmetric.

Figure 6. llustration of symmetric and non‐symmetric loading cycles.
Page | 10
4. Smooth transition between primary and secondary yield surfaces
UBCSAND uses two yield surfaces to incorporate plastic response during loading.
The primarily yield surface is active for conditions of virgin or primary loading.
Primary loading is defined as an increase in stress ratio above the previous
maximum stress ratio experienced by the element. The occurrence of primary
loading is evaluated separately in both the positive and negative loading
directions. In contrast to primary loading, a secondary yield surface is used when
loading increments occur below the previous maximum stress ratio.
In version 904a, an abrupt change in response can occur when the model
switches from the secondary to the primary yield surface. These abrupt changes
are most noticeable in plots of stress path. Versions 904aR includes a transition
between these two yield surfaces. As the current stress ratio approach the
previous maximum stress ratio, the properties of the yield surface begin to
interpolate between those of the secondary and primary surfaces. The benefit of
this transition is to produce somewhat smoother stress path behavior, although
the overall effect on model response is expected to be minor.
5. Revised relationships for Rf and f
Two adjustments were made to the generic input parameters. The friction angle
at failure, m_phif, was increased for sands with (N1)60 greater than 15. For
example, the value of m_phif for (N1)60=25 was increased from 35.5 to 37.5.
This change in friction angle was made in order to stiffen the post‐liquefaction
response of denser sands. The relationship for the hyperbolic adjustment factor,
m_rf, was also revised. The current equation better represents the trend
reported in Byrne et al. (1987).
6. Calibration equations for m_hfac1
Version 904a included a calibration factor m_hfac1 that could be adjusted
element by element. The primary use of this factor is to adjust the plastic shear
stiffness with confining stress in order to achieve the anticipated relationship
between initial confining stress and cyclic resistance ratio, or the Kσ effect. To
reduce the amount of calibration needed on typical applications of UBCSAND, a
set of generic equations was developed for m_hfac1 that are based on the
current m_n160 and the initial effective stress state of each element. These
equations allow for easy calculation of element‐specific values of m_hfac1,
provide more continuity between evaluations performed by different analysts,
and simplify the development of preliminary analyses. The calibration equations
for m_hfac1 assume the generic input parameters are being used for UBCSAND,
and that the desired Kσ relationship is as defined by the NCEER workshop (Youd
Page | 11
et al, 2001). These equations for m_hfac1, provided Appendix 1, are optional and
can be easily replaced by project‐specific relationships.
3.1 Static analysis mode
A new parameter m_static was added to permit the model to function in a
simpler manner when used during pre‐earthquake static analyses. Certain
aspects of the dynamic formulation are deactivated when m_static is set equal
to 1: dilative volumetric strains are not accumulated; only the primary yield
surface is used (for m_ocr < 2); load cycles are not counted; and the unload‐
reload plasticity adjustments are not included. The full seismic formulation is
used when m_static=0.
Page | 12
4 Single Element Behavior of UBCSAND 904aR
A series of single element analyses were performed to demonstrate the behavior
predicted by UBCSAND 904aR1. These analyses were constructed to simulate an
idealized DSS laboratory test: the two base nodes are fixed against translation and the
two top nodes are constrained so that their movements are identical. Loading is
imposed by applying a horizontal velocity to the top nodes. The vertical movement of
the top nodes is not externally fixed. The porosity of the element was assumed to be
0.5, while the bulk modulus of the pore fluid was taken to be one‐fourth the value of de‐
aired water, or Kw = 5e6 kPa. The generic input parameters provided in Appendix 2
were used in the analyses.
For the sake of making comparisons between the UBCSAND liquefaction response and
various empirical and laboratory relationships, a clear definition is needed for defining
the onset of liquefaction in the UBCSAND element. Liquefaction is assumed to occur
when either of the following two criteria is satisfied: the excess pore pressure ratio ru
exceeds 0.85 or the maximum shear strain γ exceeds 3%. ru is a measure of the increase
in pore pressure where ru equals 0 if the pore pressures do not change, and ru equals 1
when effective stress become equal to zero (see Section 5.1). These two criteria are
similar to those often used to define the onset of liquefaction in a laboratory test. The ru
criterion was often the critical criterion for analyses using lower values of (N1)60cs, while
the shear strain criterion was often satisfied for cases with larger (N1)60cs values where a
significant static bias was present.
4.1 Typical stress-strain and stress path behavior
Typical behavior of the UBCSAND model is shown in Figure 7 to Figure 10. Monotonic

and cyclic DSS simulations, both drained and undrained, were performed for two
density states: (N1)60 = 5 and 15. All the simulations were performed using an initial
effective vertical stress of 100 kPa. Initial Ko conditions of 0.5 and 1.0 were evaluated for
each value of (N1)60. The analyses used the generic input parameters described in
Appendix 2.
These figures are intended to demonstrate the typical behavior of UBCSAND in a simple
shear simulation. A direct comparison to laboratory tests results is shown Section 4.9.
The drained monotonic predictions are shown in Figure 7. The denser material is seen to
have a stiffer stress‐strain response, with dilative volumetric strains after a shear strain
of about 0.3%. The (N1)60 = 5 test shows a small dilative response after shear strains of

1
The results and description of UBCSAND 904aR presented in the report refer to the constitutive code
version UBCSAND904aRDP.dr8.

Page | 13
about 2.5%. For both cases, the Ko = 0.5 response is stiffer than the Ko = 1.0 response,

although the effect is more pronounced on the looser sand.
The corresponding undrained response is shown on Figure 8. As expected, the
(N1)60 = 15 sand shows significantly stiffer and stronger behavior than the (N1)60 = 5
sand. For the (N1)60 = 5 sand, the Ko = 1.0 response is significantly softer than the
Ko = 0.5 analysis. This trend is reversed for the (N1)60 = 15 sand, which is consistent with
the observations discussed in Section 4.7.
Figure 9 shows predictions for drained cyclic loading, while Figure 10 shows predictions
for undrained cyclic loading. The applied cyclic loading in each case was equal to the
CRR15 as determined from the NCEER/NSF chart. For the drained case, 15 cycles of this
loading were applied. The trends observed from the cyclic loading are reasonable,
although UBCSAND is still shown to be sensitive to the initial Ko conditions. The potential
importance of Ko on the liquefiability of an element is seen most clearly in the
predictions for (N1)60 = 5: the volumetric strain versus shear strain plot for drained
conditions (Figure 9c) and the stress path plot for undrained conditions (Figure 10c). The
cyclic analysis results are consistent with the monotonic loading predictions.
80
Shear Stress Sxy (kPa)
60
40 (N1)60 =5 Ko = 1.0
(N1)60 =5 Ko = 0.5
20 (N1)60 =15 Ko = 1.0
(N1)60 =15 Ko = 0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Shear Strain  %
a. Stress‐strain
0.1
Volumetric Strain (%)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0 1 2 3 4 5
Shear Strain  %
b. Volumetric strain versus shear strain
Figure 7. UBCSAND 904aR predictions of monotonic drained loading.

Page | 14

120
(N1)60 =5 Ko = 1.0
100 (N1)60 =5 Ko = 0.5
80 (N1)60 =15 Ko = 1.0
(N1)60 =15 Ko = 0.5
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Shear Strain  %

a. Stress‐strain

120
100
(N1)60 =5 Ko = 1.0
80
(N1)60 =5 Ko = 0.5
60 (N1)60 =15 Ko = 1.0
(N1)60 =15 Ko = 0.5
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200
v' kPa

b. Stress path
Figure 8. UBCSAND 904aR predictions of monotonic undrained loading.
Page | 15
20

10
-10 (N1)60 =5 Ko = 1.0

(N1)60 =5 Ko = 0.5
-20
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Shear Strain  %
a. Stress‐strain for (N1)60 = 5
20
10
(N1)60 =15 Ko = 1.0

-10
(N1)60 =15 Ko = 0.5
-20
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Shear Strain  %
b. Stress‐strain for (N1)60 = 15
0
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06 (N1)60 =5 Ko = 1.0
-0.08 (N1)60 =5 Ko = 0.5
-0.1
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Shear Strain  %
c. Volumetric strain versus shear strain for (N1)60 = 5
0
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
(N1)60 =15 Ko = 1.0
-0.08 (N1)60 =15 Ko = 0.5
-0.1
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Shear Strain  %
d. Volumetric strain versus shear strain for (N1)60 = 15
Figure 9. UBCSAND 904aR predictions of drained cyclic loading.

Page | 16
20

10
-10 (N1)60 =5 Ko = 1.0

(N1)60 =5 Ko = 0.5
-20
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Shear Strain  %
a. Stress‐strain for (N1)60 = 5
20
10
(N1)60 =15 Ko = 1.0

-10
(N1)60 =15 Ko = 0.5
-20
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Shear Strain  %

b. Stress‐strain for (N1)60 = 15
20
10
-10 (N1)60 =5 Ko = 1.0

(N1)60 =5 Ko = 0.5
-20
0 20 40 60 80 100
v' kPa
c. Stress path for (N1)60 = 5
20
10
-10
-20
0 20 40 60 80 100
(N1)60 =15 Ko = 1.0
v' kPa (N1)60 =15 Ko = 0.5

d. Stress path for (N1)60 = 15
Figure 10. UBCSAND 904aR predictions of undrained cyclic loading.
Page | 17
4.2 Cyclic strength curve
The generic input parameters Appendix 2 were calibrated to reproduce the liquefaction
triggering behavior recommended by the 1997 NCEER/NSF workshop (Youd et al., 2001).
This was done by recognizing that the NCEER/NSF triggering chart corresponds to
earthquakes with magnitudes of about 7.5. The cyclic shear stress history induced by
earthquakes of this magnitude can be approximated by 15 uniform cycles of shear stress
with a magnitude equal to the cyclic shear stress determined from the triggering chart.
In other words, the cyclic resistance ratio indicated by the NCEER/NSF curve for a given
corrected SPT blowcount, or (N1)60cs, should just induce liquefaction in an element if it is
applied in 15 uniform cycles.
There is some uncertainty when applying the NCEER/NSF triggering curve in an
advanced analysis. Typical 2‐D analyses consider only a single horizontal and vertical
direction of loading. Cyclic loading in the out‐of‐plane direction should typically increase
the generation of pore pressures in an element. The data represented by the
NCEER/NSF curve was obtained or estimated from actual field response and is affected
by loading in three component directions. Using the NCEER/NSF curve may somewhat
address the limitations of a 2‐D analysis in terms of input loading, but in an uncertain
manner. There is also the question of bias in the NCEER/NSF triggering relationship,
caused by both the distribution of the field data in terms of initial effective stress and by
the simplified analysis techniques used to develop the field estimates of cyclic stress
ratio. However, these types of uncertainties are inherent in many modern analyses
based on the NCEER/NSF curve.
The results of the UBCSAND simulation are shown in Figure 11. This figure shows the
cyclic stress ratio causing liquefaction in 15 uniform cycles versus (N1)60. Each of the
plotted values of cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) reflect the higher value determined from
two analyses: one with Ko equal to 0.5 and the second with Ko equal to 1.0, where Ko is
the ratio of horizontal effective stress to vertical effective stress at the start of loading. A
discussion of the influence of Ko on the triggering resistance of UBCSAND is provided in
Section 4.7.
The CRR predicted by UBCSAND is seen to increase gradually and smoothly with
increasing (N1)60cs. A direct comparison of the CRR estimates from UBCSAND is made to
several current triggering curves: the NCEER/NSF triggering curve, the curve proposed
by Idriss and Boulanger (2006), and the curves proposed by Cetin et al. (2004) for a
probability of liquefaction equal to 20% and 50%. The CRR estimates generated by
UBCSAND are seen to agree closely with NCEER/NSF and the Idriss and Boulanger
relationships. The two curves developed from the Cetin et al. (2004) approach are
substantially lower.
Page | 18
4.3 Weighting curve
Weighting curves show the relative importance of stress cycles having different
magnitudes. It takes fewer cycles of a large shear stress to liquefy a sand as compared to
a small shear stress, and this relationship is reflected in the weighting curve. Weighting
curves are developed in the laboratory by testing a series of equivalent sand samples
with uniform cycles of cyclic loading. Each sample is tested at a different magnitude of
cyclic shear stress and the corresponding number of cycles to induce liquefaction is
recorded. The resulting data is plotted to produce a weighting curve, generally shown as
CSR versus the log of the number of cycles to liquefaction. It is convenient to plot the
CSR data in a normalized fashion, where each CSR value is divided by CSR15, which is the
CSR causing liquefaction in 15 cycles.
A large number of weighting curve tests performed on samples obtained by in situ
freezing were compiled by Beaty (2001). These data suggest the shape of the
normalized weighting curve is fairly consistent over a range of sands, while the curves
0.5
UBCSAND 904aR.dr6
1997 NCEER/NSF Workshop (Youd et al. 2001)
Idriss and Boulanger (2006)

0.4
τ cyc / σvo'
Cetin et al. (2004) for 20% probability of liquefaction

Cetin et al. (2004) for 50% probability of liquefaction
0.3
Cyclic Resistance Ratio
0.2
0.1
σvo' = 1 atm
Mw = 7.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Corrected Clean Sand Blowcount (N1)60cs

Figure 11. Values of CRR predicted by UBCSAND 904aR and compared to semi‐empirical
relationships.
Page | 19
for denser sands tended to be somewhat steeper than for looser sands. The data also
suggests that the steepness of the weighting curve can be affected by the criteria used
to define the onset of liquefaction.
Weighting curves were generated by UBCSAND by performing a similar series of cyclic
DSS simulations. The tests were performed for a range of relative densities and the
computed values are plotted on Figure 12. For comparison, the weighting curve
inherent in the magnitude correction relationship proposed by Idriss and Boulanger
(2006) is also shown. This curve was developed from the values of Km proposed by Idriss
and Boulanger in combination with the corresponding cycles of significant loading
assigned to each earthquake magnitude. The weighting curves generated by UBCSAND
are in reasonable agreement with the curve developed from Idriss and Boulanger
(2006). The weighting curves generally become steeper as the (N1)60 values increase,
except for the curve estimated for (N1)60 = 2 which plots steeper than expected based
on the other curves.
The effect of initial confining stress on the weighting curve was evaluated as shown in
Figure 13. The weighting curves predicted by UBCSAND are affected by this change in
confining stress, but to a relatively modest degree. The expected relationship between
weighting curve and effective stress is not known.
2.5
(N1)60 =2, CRR15 =0.053
(N1)60 =5, CRR15 =0.072
(N1)60 =10, CRR15 =0.113
2 (N1)60 =15, CRR15 =0.160
(N1)60 =20, CRR15 =0.215
CRR / CRR 15
(N1)60 =25, CRR15 =0.292

FromIdriss and Boulanger Km(2006)
1.5
Dashed lines show best fit power curves.
0.5
1 10 100
Number of Cycles to Liquefaction

Figure 12. Cyclic strength curve for UBCSAND 904aR for σ'vo = 1 atm.

Page | 20
4.4 Effect of initial static shear stress
The effect of the initial static shear bias on the cyclic behavior of a sand has typically
been evaluated through cyclic element tests. Uniform cycles of shear load are applied to
a sample of the sand, and the magnitude of the cyclic stress ratio to cause liquefaction
in a set number of cycles is determined. This is repeated for various levels of initial shear
stress. This initial shear stress produces a constant bias in the cyclic shear load as shown
in Figure 14. The magnitude of the initial shear stress is typically expressed as , which is
the initial shear stress normalized by the initial vertical effective stress.
Changing the static shear stress will influence the cyclic resistance ratio CRR. In a
simplified liquefaction triggering analysis, the correction factor K is defined as the CRR
for a static bias of  divided by the CRR when  equals zero (i.e., K = CRR / CRR=0).
A recent evaluation was made by Idriss and Boulanger (2003) of a limited number of
cyclic simple shear tests performed to investigate K. This tests evaluated a range of
relative densities and initial shear stress conditions, including those having no shear
stress reversal on the horizontal plane. These tests were evaluated in terms of the
relative state parameter concept, and a relationship between , (N1)60, sand grain type,
2.5
(N1)60 =5, CRR15 =0.072, Sigvo' = 1 atm
(N1)60 =5, CRR15 =0.072, Sigvo' = 4 atm
(N1)60 =15, CRR15 =0.160, Sigvo' = 1 atm

2
(N1)60 =15, CRR15 =0.160, Sigvo' = 4 atm
(N1)60 =25, CRR15 =0.292, Sigvo' = 1 atm

CRR / CRR 15
(N1)60 =25, CRR15 =0.292, Sigvo' = 4 atm

1.5
0.5
1 10 100

Figure 13. Weighting curves from UBCSAND 904aR for σ'vo = 1 atm and 4 atm.

Page | 21
alpha = 0.2
 Increasing α
alpha = 0.1
Shear Stress
alpha = 0
Cycles or Loading

Figure 14. Example showing effect of static bias on uniform load cycles with same CSR.
effective stress, and K was proposed. The recommended relationship for quartz sands
is shown in Figure 15 and compared against the original laboratory test data. Figure 16
shows the earlier K relationship by Harder and Boulanger (1997) that was presented at
the 1997 NCEER workshop.
The relationship between , (N1)60, and CRR was predicted by the UBCSAND model by
simulating a series of cyclic simple shear tests. All of these simulations were performed
using an initial vo = 1 atm. The CSR required to trigger liquefaction in 15 cycles was
determined for each combination of  and (N1)60. Figure 17 compares the K predictions
for UBCSAND 904a and UBCSAND 904aR.
The K behavior inherent in UBCSAND 904a deviates significantly from the K
relationship derived from laboratory test data. The value of K initially drops below 1.0
for low values of  regardless of (N1)60. K eventually increases in a fairly abrupt manner
as  increases. This increase occurs consistently across the range of evaluated (N1)60. It
is more abrupt and occurs at lower values of  for low values of (N1)60. This behavior is
not realistic when compared to the laboratory test data, and is related to the simplified
response of partial unload‐reload cycles.
Page | 22
2
Laboratory Test Data
Vaid & Finn 1979 (N ~ 21)
N ~ 21
Boulanger et al. 1991(N ~ 14)
1.5
Vaid & Finn 1979 (N ~ 12)
Boulanger et al. 1991(N ~ 6)
N ~ 14
K 1
K
N ~ 12
Idriss & Boulanger

0.5 relationship (2003)
N~ 6
solid line : vo = 2 atm
dashed line : vo = 1atm
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4


Figure 15. Relationship between K,  and (N1)60. Data and plotted trends from Idriss
and Boulanger (2003). Laboratory data from tests performed at vo = 2 atm.
Figure 16. K relationship from Harder and Boulanger (1997).

Page | 23
2
UBCSAND
Predictions:
(N1)60 = 5
1.5
(N1)60 = 10
(N1)60 = 15
K
K
(N1)60 = 25
1
Dashed lines show

0.5 estimates using
relationship from
Idriss & Boulanger
(2003) for
0 (N1)60 = 5, 10, 15 and
25
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

a) Predictions of UBCSAND 904a
2 UBCSAND
Predictions:
(N1)60 = 2
1.5 (N1)60 = 5
(N1)60 = 10
(N1)60 = 15
K
K
(N1)60 = 20
1
(N1)60 = 25
(N1)60 = 30
0.5 Dashed lines show

UBCSAND 904aR.dr8 estimates using relationship
Sigvo' = 1 Atm from
Ko = 0.5 - 1.0 Idriss & Boulanger (2003)
0 for
(N1)60 = 5 (blue), 10 (pink),
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
15 (green) and 25 (red)

b) Predictions of UBCSAND 904aR
Figure 17. UBCSAND predictions of Kα versus relationships proposed by Idriss and
Boulanger (2003).
Page | 24
A second feature of the K predictions from version 904a is the eventual decrease of K
for (N1)60 = 5 at  > 0.15. This occurs due to the combination of a large static shear
stress and the initial pulse of the cyclic load. This initial pulse induces strain softening
and causes the element to fail under a monotonic load. The shear strains resulting from
this monotonic load are significant and satisfy the liquefaction triggering criteria.
An improved relationship between , (N1)60, CSR, and liquefaction resistance is seen in
the K predictions for UBCSAND 904aR shown on Figure 17 (b) and Figure 18. The
objectives of 904aR were to eliminate the artificial increase in the predicted values of K
with increasing , to create consistency between the predicted K curves so that larger
values of K would occur for larger values of (N1)60 over the full range of , and to
generally produce K estimates that were approximately equal or somewhat less than
those suggested by the data and relationships presented by Idriss and Boulanger (2003).
A further restraint was imposed to prevent the model from predicting K values
significantly larger than 1. This constraint reflects the uncertainty regarding the effect of
static bias in field situation, including how out‐of‐plane motions will affect pore pressure
generation beneath slopes. Most of these objectives were achieved in 904aR.
4.5 Modulus reduction and damping behavior
The relationship between secant modulus, hysteretic damping, and the magnitude of
2
UBCSAND
Predictions:
(N1)60 = 2
1.5
(N1)60 = 5
K (N1)60 = 10
K
1 (N1)60 = 15
(N1)60 = 20
(N1)60 = 25
0.5
(N1)60 = 30
Background figure is
0
fromHarder and
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Boulanger
 (NCEER, 1997)

Figure 18. Comparison of Kα from UBCSAND 904aR versus Harder and Boulanger (1997).

Page | 25
shear strain cycles was evaluated for UBCSAND and compared to typical relationships.

DSS tests were performed using UBCSAND with the generic input parameters. The
analyses assumed drained conditions and were performed with an initial σ'vo of 1 atm.
Initial stress states of Ko = 0.5 and Ko = 1.0 were evaluated. The cyclic loading was
applied in a strain‐controlled and symmetric manner. Four cycles of loading were
applied at each selected value of strain, and the average secant modulus and damping
were determined from the 4th computed cycle. Figure 19 shows the curves estimated
for (N1)60 values of 10 and 20.
The reduction in shear stiffness with strain that is predicted by UBCSAND is seen to be in
reasonable agreement with the Idriss (1999) trend for sand. The amount of damping
predicted by the model for symmetric load cycles is seen to be significantly higher than
anticipated from soil tests. For example, the anticipated damping at a cyclic shear strain
of 0.1% is approximately 10% to 20% of critical damping. The damping produced by
UBCSAND at this strain level is approximately 30% for the two sands that were
simulated. The minimum damping produced by UBCSAND for symmetric loading at small
strains ranges from near 0% to 10%. The larger than anticipated damping produced by
UBCSAND is due in large part to the simplification of elastic unloading at the maximum
shear modulus Gmax. The use of linear elastic unloading creates an extended stiff portion
to the stress‐strain curve, producing larger loop areas than would be anticipated from a
laboratory test.
A significant difference is seen between the Ko = 0.5 and Ko = 1.0 analyses at small strain
levels. This difference is caused by the tendency for the elastic response to dominate for
the Ko=0.5 analysis until the direction of the peak shear stress sufficiently rotates.
The large damping inherent in the UBCSAND model occurs for symmetric load cycles. A
somewhat reduced damping is anticipated for cycles that are non‐symmetric. For
example, samples that partially unload and then reload with a stiffened shear modulus
should dissipate a relatively small amount of energy through hysteresis during the
unload‐reload cycle.
Page | 26
1
UBCSAND (N1)60=10 Ko=1.0
0.8 UBCSAND (N1)60=20 Ko=1.0
Idriss curve for sand (1999)
Gsecant / Gmax
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain (%)

a) Modulus reduction curves.

70%
60% UBCSAND (N1)60=10 Ko=0.5

50%
Damping (% of Critical)
Idriss curve for sand (1999)

Seed Idriss (1970) Bounds
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear Strain (%)

b) Damping curves.

Figure 19. Modulus reduction and damping curves estimated for UBCSAND 904aR.

Page | 27
4.6 Effect of confining stress
The effect of confining stress on liquefaction resistance is addressed through the K
factor in a simplified liquefaction evaluation. This factor modifies the cyclic resistance
ratio as a function of the initial vertical effective stress. Since the natural behavior of
UBCSAND may not necessarily follow a selected K relationship, the desired K behavior
is currently approximated in UBCSAND by adjusting the plastic shear stiffness number
KGP to be a function of the initial effective vertical stress.
Adjustment factors m_hfac1 were developed for the 904aR version that reproduce the
K curve recommended by Youd et al. (2001). The exponent “f” in the K equation was
estimated by assuming the following relationship between relative density Dr and (N1)60:
Dr2 = (N1)60/46. The relationship between (N1)60, vo, and m_hfac1 was developed by
selecting various combinations of (N1)60 and vo, applying a cyclic load equal to K times
the expected CRR at vo = 1 atm, then adjusting m_hfac1 until the cyclic DSS simulation
produced liquefaction in 15 cycles. This procedure led to an equation for m_hfac1 as a
function of (N1)60 and vo as described in Appendix 2. It is interesting that the estimated
relationship for m_hfac1 is in the form of a power curve, similar to the adopted
relationship for K.
Each combination of (N1)60 and vo were evaluated at two initial values of horizontal
effective stress corresponding to Ko = 0.5 and Ko = 1.0. The final calibration parameter
was selected from the initial stress case that proved to be the more difficult to liquefy.
In general, simulations with lower initial stresses or lower (N1)60 values tended to liquefy
more easily at Ko = 1.0 conditions. Simulations with higher initial stresses or higher
(N1)60bvalues tended to liquefy more easily at Ko = 0.5 conditions.
The resulting adjustment factors are shown in Figure 20. This figure shows m_hfac1
values greater than 1 when vo is less than 1 atm. Although some increase in cyclic
resistance is expected at low initial confining stresses, the value of m_hfac1 would
typically be limited to a maximum of the value at vo equal to 1 atm.
Figure 21 shows the values of K that were estimated using UBCSAND and the generic
input parameters from Appendix 2. These estimates are directly compared to the
NCEER/NSF recommendations. The relationship developed for m_hfac1 is shown to
produce a good agreement with the K curves. Values of K were estimated for vo less
than 1 atm both with and without the restriction on m_hfac1. Restricting m_hfac1 to
the value computed for vo = 1 atm did reduce the estimated values of K at low vo,
although these K estimates were still somewhat above 1.0.
Page | 28
1.5
(N1)60 = 2
(N1)60 = 5
(N1)60 = 8
1
(N1)60 = 10
m_hfac1
(N1)60 = 12
(N1)60 = 14
0.5 (N1)60 = 16
(N1)60 = 24
(N1)60 = 30
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
vo' (atm)
Figure 20. Calibration results showing relationship between m_hfac1, (N1)60, and vo.
1.4
m_hfac1 not NCEER Dr = 0.40, f = 0.8
restricted NCEER Dr = 0.60, f = 0.7
1.2
NCEER Dr = 0.80, f = 0.6
UBCSAND: (N1)60 = 4, Dr ~ 0.29
1.0 UBCSAND: (N1)60 = 11, Dr ~ 0.49
UBCSAND: (N1)60 = 18, Dr ~ 0.63
UBCSAND: (N1)60 = 28, Dr ~ 0.78
0.8
Ksigma
m_hfac1
0.6 restricted
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sigvo' / Patm
Figure 21. K values estimated using UBCSAND 904aR and generic input parameters.

Page | 29
25
20
15
10
0
0.5 1 2 3 5 8 10
SIGvo' / Patm
N= 3 N= 5 N= 9 N = 15 N = 20 N = 27

Figure 22. Predicted number of cycles to liquefaction versus σ'vo and (N1)60 using NCEER
Kσ relationship and generic equations for m_hfac1.
A similar comparison is shown on Figure 22 which relates the computed number of
cycles to liquefaction versus initial effective vertical stress and blowcount. The generic
input parameters were used, and the samples were loaded with a cyclic stress intended
to produce liquefaction in 15 cycles at each stress level. The generic input parameters
are seen to reasonably duplicate the anticipated liquefaction response, with the
greatest deviation at high initial stress levels. The elements at high stress levels were
somewhat more resistant to liquefaction than would be predicted from the NCEER Kσ
relationship. This deviation results from approximations in the curves developed for
m_hfac1.
4.7 Effect of Ko
The liquefaction response predicted by UBCSAND is a function of Ko, the ratio of the
initial horizontal effective stress to the initial vertical effective stress. Some relationship
is anticipated between Ko and CRR since liquefaction resistance should be influenced by
the initial mean effective stress (e.g., the mean effective stress has a strong influence on
the shear stiffness response, which in turn relates to the pore pressure generation).
However, this relationship appears to be exaggerated in UBCSAND since the plastic
effects of principal stress rotation are not considered.

Page | 30
The rotation of principal stress can be a problem in any constitutive model based on
classical plasticity when the direction of maximum shear stress is not coincident with
the direction of the applied cyclic loading. As a shear load is applied to the model and
plastic strains are generated, the direction of maximum shear stress will tend to rotate
until it approximates the direction of the applied shear loading. This rotation should
generate plastic shear and volumetric strains, but these additional strains are not
considered in the UBCSAND model.
The effect of Ko was considered during the calibration of UBCSAND. Several trends were
noted when performing DSS simulations of undrained sands using UBCSAND with an
applied cyclic load equal to CRR15. It was observed that sands with relatively low values
of (N1)60 tended to liquefy more easily at Ko = 1 than at Ko = 0.5. In contrast, sands with
high values of (N1)60 tended to liquefy more easily at Ko = 0.5 than at Ko = 1.0. It was also
noted that this relationship was a function of σ'vo. At a low stress a sand might liquefy
more easily at Ko = 0.5, while that same sand would liquefy more easily at Ko = 1.0 at a
higher stress level.
To address the influence of Ko on liquefiability, UBCSAND was calibrated considering
both Ko = 0.5 and Ko = 1.0. Whichever initial stress state was found to be the more
difficult to liquefy was selected for use in the calibration. Once the calibrations were
completed, the effect of Ko on the liquefiability of the model was investigated. A series
of DSS simulations were performed for various (N1)60 values and for σ'vo values of 1 atm
and 4 atm. The applied cyclic load was CSR15. A number of analyses were performed at
each (N1)60 value by changing the initial Ko value. The number of cycles to liquefaction
was then determined at each Ko value. The number of cycles would approach 15 at
either Ko = 0.5 or Ko = 1.0 depending on how the calibration had been performed. At
other values of Ko the required number of cycles would vary.
To help evaluate the trend of liquefiability versus Ko, the predicted number of cycles at
each Ko was converted into an equivalent CRR15 using the weighting curves developed
for UBCSAND in Section 4.3. The resulting curves reveal the direct relationship between
CRR15 and Ko as shown in Figure 23. This relationship is seen to be fairly subtle for Ko < 1
and (N1)60 > 10 ‐ 15. Significantly reduced values of CRR15 (i.e., more liquefiable) can
occur for smaller (N1)60 values with Ko near unity. All values of (N1)60 tended to be
significantly more resistant to liquefaction at higher values of Ko.
Page | 31
3
(N1)60 = 2, Sigvo' = 1 Atm
(N1)60 = 5, Sigvo' = 1 Atm
2.5
(N1)60 = 10, Sigvo' = 1 Atm
CRR_actual / CRR_15
(N1)60 = 15, Sigvo' = 1 Atm

2
(N1)60 = 20, Sigvo' = 1 Atm
(N1)60 = 25, Sigvo' = 1 Atm
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Ko
a) σ'vo = 1 atm
3
(N1)60 = 5, Sigvo' = 1 Atm
(N1)60 = 5, Sigvo' = 4 Atm
2.5
(N1)60 = 15, Sigvo' = 1 Atm
CRR_actual / CRR_15
(N1)60 = 15, Sigvo' = 4 Atm

2
(N1)60 = 25, Sigvo' = 1 Atm
(N1)60 = 25, Sigvo' = 4 Atm
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Ko

b) Comparison of σ'vo = 1 atm and σ'vo = 4 atm.
Figure 23. Predicted relationship between Ko and CRR15 for UBCSAND 904aR.
Page | 32
4.8 Rate of excess pore pressure generation and volumetric strain
The rate of excess pore pressure generation predicted by UBCSAND was evaluated by
comparing published trends from laboratory tests with trends predicted from DSS
simulations. The data from the DSS simulations used the analyses previously described
in Section 4.1.
Figure 24 compares the rate of excess pore pressure generation (ru) summarized by
Seed et al. (1976) to the predictions made by UBCSAND. The two sets of plots agree
well, with two exceptions. The initial rate of pore pressure generation is relatively slow
for the (N1)60 = 5 material with Ko = 0.5. This is related to the importance of the initial
stress state on the UBCSAND prediction for the low blowcount sand. The second
deviation occurs when liquefaction is approached. The Seed et al. trend shows a rather
smooth increase towards a fully liquefied state, while the UBCSAND predictions become
a bit irregular as the element approaches liquefaction. Some of these fluctuations are
due to the cycles of dilation and contraction that are predicted near the occurrence of
liquefaction. The UBCSAND predictions appear smoother and are in better agreement
with the Seed trends if only the maximum ru from each half cycle is plotted.

1
(N1)60 =5 Ko = 1.0
(N1)60 =5 Ko = 0.5
0.8 (N1)60 =15 Ko = 1.0
(N1)60 =15 Ko = 0.5
Excess Pore Pressure Ratio
Range of data (Seed et al. 1976)

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Cyclic Ratio, N / Nliq

Figure 24. Rate of excess pore pressure generation from UBCSAND 904aR versus trend
reported by Seed et al. (1976).
Page | 33
Figure 25 compares the relationship between factor of safety for liquefaction FSLIQ
versus ru. The published trend used for the comparison is from Marcuson et al. (1990).
FSLIQ is defined as the CSR that will liquefy the element in a given number of cycles
divided by the CSR that is actually applied to the element for that same number of
cycles. The corresponding ru value is the maximum value obtained during the given
number of loading cycles. The same combination of (N1)60, Ko, and CSR were
investigated as shown in Figure 24. The values of ru versus FSLIQ predicted by UBCSAND
give reasonable agreement with the published trend. UBCSAND appears to predict
somewhat larger increases in pore pressure due to small loading cycles than would be
expected from the published information.
4.9 Comparison to cyclic DSS data on Fraser River sand
A direct comparison between the 904aR model and cyclic laboratory data in DSS is
shown in Figure 26 through Figure 29. The data is from tests performed at the University
of British Columbia on Fraser River sand. The sand was reconstituted by air pluviation to
a relative density Dr of 40%. While the 904a version is not capable of simulating the
observed increase in pore pressure for the cases that do not have a shear stress
reversal, the 904aR version is seen to give a reasonable representation of the observed
pore pressure response.
The input parameters for the UBCSAND analysis were developed by first noting that the
sample with no static bias and an applied CSR of 0.08 had liquefied in 17 cycles. The
UBCSAND model was then run under the same loading conditions using the generic
input parameters. The (N1)60 that is used to define these parameters was then adjusted
until the UBCSAND element liquefied in 17 cycles. An (N1)60 value of 6.9 was required to
achieve liquefaction in 17 cycles, which suggests Dr2 ≈ (N1)60 / 43 for this sand. These
simulations were run with an initial Ko of 0.5.
Figure 26 shows the comparison between the laboratory data and the UBCSAND
simulation for the case of no static bias. Some significant differences are noted. One
difference is the rate of pore pressure generation, which initially increases at a slower
rate than was observed in the laboratory. This is due, in part, to how principal stress
rotation is addressed in UBCSAND: stress rotation with no change in maximum stress
ratio produces an elastic response. This stress rotation component is relatively
significant in the early stages of the DSS simulation. This causes the initial load
increments in the simulation to generate a reduced plastic response until the internal
stresses rotate and become aligned with the applied load increments. For this
simulation, about 9 load cycles are required before the horizontal effective stress
becomes equal to the vertical effective stress. To address this simplification in the
UBCSAND model, the plastic stiffness parameters of the model have been softened
during the calibration process so that the full excess pore pressure is still achieved in the
correct number of cycles.
Page | 34

a. Typical relationships between ru and FSLIQ from laboratory data
(from Marcuson et al. 1990)

1

(N1)60 = 5 Ko = 0.5 Nliq = 14.5
(N1)60 = 5 Ko = 1.0 Nliq = 6.0
0.8
(N1)60 = 15 Ko = 0.5 Nliq = 11.5
(N1)60 = 15 Ko = 1.0 Nliq = 15.0
Excess Pore Pressure Ratio
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6
FSLIQ

Figure 25. Rate of excess pore pressure generation from UBCSAND 904aR versus trend
reported by Seed et al. (1976).

Page | 35
Another significant difference between the laboratory data and simulation is the
stiffness of the element prior to liquefaction. The UBCSAND model predicts a stress‐
strain response that is approximately 5 to 7 times stiffer than observed in the
laboratory. This is due to differences between the assumptions of the generic input
parameters and the specific properties associated with this sand. The maximum shear
stiffness estimated from the laboratory data appears to be somewhat smaller than is
normally expected from sand with a relative density of 40%. For example, using the
Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) relationship between Gmax and (N1)60, a sand with an (N1)60
of 6.9 and an initial mean effective stress of about 60 kPa would be expected to have a
Gmax of about 65000 kPa. The initial load cycles measured in the laboratory and shown
on Figure 26 show a cyclic strain of approximately 0.10%. The anticipated secant
modulus at this strain level is expected to be about 80% of Gmax, or about 50000 kPa.
The effect of a modest increase in pore pressure will tend to reduce this modulus
somewhat. But the corresponding secant modulus determined from the laboratory data
is only 9000 kPa, or about 1/6 of the anticipated value. This difference between
observed and predicted response could be addressed through a material‐specific
calibration.
To evaluate the effect of principal stress rotation on the predictions, the analysis shown
in Figure 26 was repeated with an initial Ko of 1.0. Using this Ko value means the cyclic
loading will be coincident with the direction of maximum shear strain at the start of
loading. A new representative (N1)60 of 8.0 was selected to achieve liquefaction in 17
cycles. The predicted results are shown on Figure 27. The Ko = 1 simulation is shown to
provide a much closer representation to the laboratory test results. The increase in pore
pressure with load cycles is an almost identical match, and the plot of stress path is
more similar, particularly in the earlier load cycles. There is still a discrepancy between
the stiffness revealed in the stress‐strain plots, although the stiffness of the Ko = 1
simulation is somewhat softer than for the Ko = 0.5 simulation.
Figure 28 provides a comparison for the same conditions and input parameters except
for an initial static bias equivalent to α = 0.106. This produces a loading state with no
stress reversals on the x‐y plane. As with α = 0.0, the initial stiffness predicted by
UBCSAND and the generic input parameters is much larger than was observed in the
laboratory test, and the initial rate of pore pressure generation is much slower. As a
result, the UBCSAND simulation requires addition load cycles before it liquefies: 4 cycles
for the laboratory test and 13 for the simulation. The loading stiffness of the simulation
after several post‐liquefaction cycles generally agrees with that observed in the
laboratory.
Page | 36
1
0.8
0.6
ru
0.4 DSS data
UBCSAND
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20
Number of Cycles

a) Rate of pore pressure generation
10
DSS data
5 UBCSAND
-5
First 15 cycles of loading
-10
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
Shear Strain  %
b)Stress‐strain behavior (first 15 cycles)
10
DSS data
5 UBCSAND
-5
-10
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Shear Strain  %
c) Stress‐strain behavior
10
-5
-10
0 25 50 75 100
DSS data
v' kPa UBCSAND

c) Stress path

Figure 26. Laboratory DSS and UBCSAND 904aR using generic input parameters
(Dr = 40%, α = 0, Ko = 0.5 in simulation, and CSR = 0.0826).
Page | 37
1
0.8
0.6
ru 0.4 DSS data
UBCSAND
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20
Number of Cycles
10
DSS data
5 UBCSAND
-5
-10
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
Shear Strain  %
10
DSS data
5 UBCSAND
-5
-10
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Shear Strain  %
10
-5
-10
0 25 50 75 100
DSS data
v' kPa UBCSAND

d) Stress path

(Dr = 40%, α = 0, Ko = 1.0 in simulation, and CSR = 0.0826).

Page | 38

1
0.8 DSS data
0.6 UBCSAND
ru
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Number of Cycles
25

20
15
10
5 DSS data
UBCSAND
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Shear Strain  %
25
DSS data
20 UBCSAND
15
10
0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Shear Strain  %

25
20
15
10
5
0
0 25 50 75 100
DSS data
v' kPa UBCSAND

d) Stress path

(Dr = 40%, α = 0.106, Ko = 0.5 in simulation, and CSR = 0.0867).

Page | 39
Figure 29 compares results for the same conditions as for Figure 28 except for this case
the applied CSR is only 0.06. The simulation and lab test predict a similar resistance to
liquefaction: 22.5 cycles to liquefaction for UBCSAND versus 15.5 cycles for the DSS test.
As with the other comparisons, the initial shear stiffness in the UBCSAND analysis is
significantly stiffer than observed in the laboratory test. The other significant difference
is the post‐liquefaction stress strain response. The loading stiffness after liquefaction in
UBCSAND is related primarily to the rate of dilation of the soil skeleton and the resulting
impact on the effective stress. The post‐liquefaction stiffness observed in the lab test is
significantly larger than the UBCSAND prediction.
DSS tests without a static bias were performed on the same sand but at a relative
density of 80%. An (N1)60 of 28 was used to develop the input parameters for UBCSAND
using the relationship of Dr2 ≈ (N1)60 / 43. Figure 30 shows comparisons between the DSS
data and the UBCSAND simulations using the generic input properties. The applied CSR
was equal to 0.29. The UBCSAND analysis again shows stiffer initial response than the
laboratory data. The UBCSAND element is predicted to liquefy in 21 cycles, while the
laboratory test showed liquefaction in approximately 11.5 cycles. The biggest
differences between the test and simulation are seen in the stress path plot and also in
the stress‐strain response after liquefaction. However, the pore pressure generation and
stress‐strain behavior predicted by UBCSAND appear to be generally appropriate for
dense sand.
Page | 40

1
0.8
ru 0.6
0.4 DSS data
UBCSAND
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Number of Cycles
20
15
10
5 DSS data
First 12 cycles of loading UBCSAND
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Shear Strain  %
20
DSS data
15 UBCSAND
10
0
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Shear Strain  %

20
15
10
0
0 25 50 75 100
DSS data
v' kPa UBCSAND

d) Stress path


Page | 41

1
0.8
ru 0.6
0.4
DSS data
0.2 UBCSAND
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Number of Cycles
40
20
-20 DSS data

UBCSAND
-40
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Shear Strain  %

b)Stress‐strain behavior (shear strains between ‐1% and 2% are shown)
40
20
-20 DSS data

UBCSAND
-40
-10 -5 0 5
Shear Strain  %
40
20
-20
-40
0 25 50 75 100
DSS data
v' kPa UBCSAND

d) Stress path


Page | 42
5 Post-earthquake analysis
The framework of the UBCSAND constitutive model was derived from observations
made on laboratory element tests. Key aspects of the model, including the relationships
between shear stiffness/effective stress/stress ratio, and between plastic volumetric
strain/shear strain/stress ratio, were all derived from these general observations. Basing
the model framework on high‐quality laboratory tests allows a fundamental approach to
the model development.
While the ability of the model to represent laboratory behavior can be demonstrated
through the simulation of element tests, a critical requirement for the model is to
ensure that it can simulate the behavior observed in the field. Such field behavior can be
very complex due to many factors that are only approximated in the laboratory, such as
complex 3‐dimensional loading, pore pressure drainage, and stratigraphy on both a
large and small scale.
One aspect that may not be adequately addressed by a laboratory‐based model is the
prediction of residual, or post‐liquefaction, strengths. These strengths have been
inferred from field case histories through the back analysis of observed slumps and
slides (Seed and Harder, 1990; Olson and Stark, 2005). The low strength values
estimated from these case histories are likely affected by complex mechanisms, such as
pore water inflow, void ratio redistribution, and stratigraphic mixing. While UBCSAND
will predict a significantly softened stress‐strain behavior after liquefaction, the resulting
mobilized strength may not be consistent with common interpretations of residual
strength.
To address this concern, a post‐earthquake analysis is typically run at the end of a
seismic‐UBCSAND analysis. This analysis is similar to a standard stability evaluation using
residual strengths and limit equilibrium techniques, except both the inherent stability
and the tendency for significant deformation are evaluated. This analysis is
accomplished by identifying those elements that have liquefied during the earthquake.
This is typically based on the maximum excess pore pressure ratio, ru, achieved during
the earthquake in each element. An ru criterion of about 0.7 is often used. While
liquefaction is often assumed to occur at ru of 1.0, using a reduced limit reflects that
zones with ru of 0.7 may be very close to liquefaction, and that zones experiencing a
sustained static bias may never reach an ru of 1.0 despite behavior that is consistent
with liquefaction. For models with low permeability barrier layers, or other problematic
features, additional zones may need to be considered liquefiable based on reasonable
estimates of pore water flow after the earthquake.
To implement the post‐earthquake analysis, the input motion is terminated and the
model is allowed to run for a period of time to allow any residual motion to decay.
Zones with peak ru values exceeding the ru limit are then converted from the UBCSAND
model to the simpler Mohr‐Coulomb model. An undrained strength equal to the

Page | 43
residual strength is assigned and low values of shear and bulk moduli are used. For the
Success Dam analyses, the shear modulus of liquefied zones was taken as 10 times the
residual strength, and the bulk modulus was assigned a value equal to 100 times the
shear modulus. The non‐liquefied zones continue to use the UBCSAND model to permit
a more accurate prediction of stress strain response due to load redistribution. The
analysis is then continued in dynamic mode and the model deforms until stability is
regained.
The ability of UBCSAND to dilate significantly with strain allows large strengths to be
mobilized in these elements, strengths that are significantly higher than would typically
be used in a post‐liquefaction stability evaluation. Although these strengths could
develop in the field, it is likely they would degrade as pore water flowed into the dilating
zones from adjacent areas. To address this concern, the ability for UBCSAND to mobilize
strength through dilation after the earthquake was limited to a maximum of the drained
strength determined in each element at the start of the earthquake.
5.1 Revised ru computation
The excess pore pressure ratio ru in any element has traditionally been defined as
ru = (u ‐ uo)/σ'vo, where u is the pore pressure at the time ru is defined, uo is the initial
pore pressure, and σ'vo is the initial vertical effective stress. This definition for ru was
developed for simple 1‐D situations with horizontal motion such as represented by a
SHAKE analysis column. In these situations, the vertical total stress does not change
during to the earthquake. ru equals zero at the start of the earthquake, and will equal 1
at the instant the effective stresses become zero. The purpose of the ru parameter is to
give a normalized measure of the pore pressure increase, with 0 indicating no increase
and 1 indicating a state of liquefaction.
The traditional definition for ru is somewhat problematic in a general 2D analysis. Total
stresses change during the earthquake due to temporary fluctuations as well as
permanent changes due to stress redistribution. The traditional definition for ru can
show large fluctuations during the earthquake that are not related to liquefaction.
Because of permanent changes in total stress, the peak value of ru corresponding to a
liquefied element might be very different than 1, often within a range of perhaps 0.7 to
1.5.
A small change can be made to the traditional definition of ru that maintains the original
intent of this index. The excess pore pressure ratio can be defined as ru = 1 ‐ σ'v/σ'vo,
where σ'v is the vertical effective stress at the time that ru is defined. This definition
maintains much of the character of the traditional definition although it still suffers from
fluctuations in ru related to normal stress changes. However, the new ru now equals 0 at
the start of loading and 1 at the instant the effective stresses vanish. The improved
stability in estimating ru values near 1 is needed when ru is used as a criterion for
defining liquefied zones.

Page | 44
6 Case History Comparison
The ability of the modified UBCSAND model to predict the behavior observed in case
histories was evaluated by analyzing the Upper and Lower San Fernando dams and
predicting their response to the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The cross section
geometry and earthquake loading modeled for these case histories follows the original
interpretation of Seed at al. (1973). The UBCSAND parameters were defined using the
generic input parameters. The use of both median and 33rd percentile blowcounts was
investigated.
6.1 Upper San Fernando Dam
The Upper San Fernando dam is located in southern California approximately 30 km
north of downtown Los Angeles. The dam was built between 1921 and 1922 and is
founded on about 15 to 18 m of alluvium overlying bedrock. The bedrock at this site is a
poorly cemented conglomeritic or coarse‐grained sandstone. The dam is approximately
21 m high with slopes of 2.5H:1V and incorporates a wide downstream bench. The
embankment material is believed to have been hauled from the borrow area in wagons,
dumped into a pond between containment dikes, and dispersed by hydraulic jetting
(Seed et al. 1973). This method yielded a central clayey zone with highly stratified shells
consisting of sand, silty sand, and clay. The sandy layers have a representative fines
content of about 25% (Harder et al. 1989). A representative cross section as developed
by Seed et al. (1973) is shown on Figure 31.
Observed seismic response
The magnitude 6.6 San Fernando earthquake occurred on February 9, 1971. The dam
was located near the western edge of the observed fault rupture. Indications of possible
surface rupture were observed within the reservoir of the Lower San Fernando dam a
Rolled Fill
18 m
HF Sand Clay
Core HF Sand
Upper Alluvium
Lower Alluvium
Bedrock
Figure 31. Representative cross‐section of Upper San Fernando dam.
Page | 45
short distance below the dam. Peak ground accelerations (PGA) at the site were
estimated to be about 0.55 to 0.6 g (Seed et al. 1973). This compares well with the
median PGA estimated from several current attenuation relationships (SSA 1997).
Deformations of the dam due to the earthquake were characterized by a general
downstream displacement. The crest moved horizontally in a downstream direction up
to 1.5 m and dropped vertically up to 1.0 m (Harder et al. 1989). Horizontal movements
of up to 2.2 m were noted on the bench at the downstream face (Serff et al. 1976).
Several longitudinal cracks with offsets were also observed running the length of the
upstream face near the reservoir surface.
The occurrence of liquefaction was suggested by increased water levels in the three
standpipe piezometers within the embankment. Water overflowed from two of these
instruments. A sinkhole was also observed in the downstream shell above a crack in the
outlet conduit.
Seismic loading
The input motion selected for this analysis was the Pacoima dam record as modified by
Seed et al. (1973) and shown on Figure 32. Although the input motion appears
reasonable for a near field record, the actual seismic loading experienced by the dam is
not known. This is a common concern in back analysis since seemingly minor differences
in the character of the input motion may produce a pronounced effect on the
displacement response.
The input seismic motion was converted to an equivalent shear stress history and then
applied to a compliant boundary at the base. A compliant boundary was used to reduce
unintended reflections off of the base of the model. The resulting motion at the base is
similar to the “within” motion that would be estimated in a SHAKE analysis, although
the FLAC motion also incorporates the two‐dimensional influence of the overlying
foundation and embankment.
The orientation of the input stress history (i.e., positive or negative polarity) was
selected so that the direction of the large velocity pulse in the model was reasonably
consistent with the orientation of the pulse at the Pacoima Dam recording site.
Maintaining a similar orientation was considered potentially important due to the
pronounced near field character of the time history.
(N1)60 characterization
Representative (N1)60 blowcounts for the hydraulic fill shells are given in Table 2. The
values are based on SPT tests performed during April and May 1971 and have been
corrected for confining stress, energy ratio, and the estimated densification caused by
the earthquake. Both 33rd percentile and median values are provided and are

Page | 46
designated (N1)60‐33 and (N1)60‐50, respectively. The (N1)60‐33 is intended to give a measure
of the looser fraction of the soil unit.
The (N1)60‐50 values in Table 1 have been modified from those published by Harder and
others (Harder et al. 1989, Seed and Harder 1990). The correction used for earthquake‐
induced volumetric strain was revised to reflect the kinematic deformations predicted in
finite difference analyses (Beaty 2001). In other words, the revised corrections were
based on smaller estimates of volumetric strain since a portion of the observed
settlements were attributed to the movement of the soil mass rather than densification.
In addition, the distribution of blowcounts within the lowest hydraulic fill zone beneath
the downstream shell and the zone described as Upper Alluvium beneath the upstream
shell are similar. Since there were relatively few data points within each of these zones,
and much of the Upper Alluvium zone was tentatively logged as hydraulic fill during the
drilling, their blowcounts were combined to produce an average distribution at the base
of the embankment.
Static analysis
The static analysis was performed in FLAC using a hyperbolic stress‐strain model based
0.6 pga = 0.60 g

Acceleration (g)(g)
0.3
Acceleration
-0.3
-0.6
0.8
pgv = 0.77 m/s
(m/s) .
Velocity(m/s)
0.4
Velocity
-0.4
0 5 10 15 20

Time (sec)
Figure 32.
Modified Pacoima Dam motion from 1971 San Fernando earthquake.
Page | 47
Table 1. Clean sand corrected blowcounts of hydraulic fill.
Depth below
Zone crest (m) (N1)60‐50 (N1)60‐33
HF (upper) 7.0 – 14.6 10 7
HF (mid) 14.6 – 18.6 14.5 11
HF (lower) 18.6 – 22.2 13 9
on the Duncan formulation (Duncan and Chang 1970). The construction and loading
sequence was approximately modeled by building the embankment model in layers and
then raising the reservoir in stages. The seepage calculations were performed using the
groundwater flow capabilities of FLAC. This process gave a reasonable if simplified
estimate of initial effective stresses and seepage forces. The material properties used in
the static analysis, including stiffness, density, and strength, were based primarily on the
testing and data evaluation performed during the 1973 study (Seed et al., 1973). The
permeability values were approximated from the Atterberg limits and gradations using
various empirical relationships, including adaptations of the Kozeny‐Carman equation
(Carrier, 2003; Aubertin et al., 2005). The selected values are shown on Table 2.
Seismic analysis
The seismic analysis, including liquefaction response and deformations, was performed
in FLAC using various constitutive models. The revised UBCSAND model was used for the
liquefiable hydraulic fill shell zones. A hysteretic model developed primarily at UBC was
used for the lower alluvium, clayey core, and rolled fill zones. And a linear elastic model
was assigned to the underlying rock. Zones defining the rock at the base of the model
are required as part of the compliant base definition in FLAC.
The hysteretic model was developed by assuming hyperbolic shear stress‐strain
behavior on the horizontal plane. This model incorporates both modulus reduction and
hysteretic damping in a reasonable way. Comparison of the model behavior predicted
from a simple shear simulation with typical curves for modulus reduction and damping
are shown in Figure 33 and Figure 34. The abrupt decrease in modulus and increase at
damping that occurs between shear strains of about 0.03% and 0.1% is the result of
plastic flow occurring at the yield strength of the element. In addition to the hysteretic
damping, a nominal amount of Rayleigh viscous damping equal to 0.5% of critical was
assigned using a center frequency of 1.0 Hz.
Page | 48
Table 2. Properties used for static analysis, USFD.
Hyd. Clay Rolled Lower

Property Units Fill Core Fill Alluvium Rock
γsat pcf 122 122 140 129 140

γmst pcf 120 120 134 120 140
cohesion psf 0 0 100 0 ―
 º 37 37 37 37 ―
1
Kge ― 420 420 300 280 ―
1
ne ― 0.52 0.52 0.76 0.8 ―
Rf 1 ― 0.78 0.78 0.9 0.66 ―
2
Kb ― 233 233 166.7 155 ―
2
me ― 0.52 0.52 0.76 0.8 ―
porosity ― 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
kxx cm/s 1e‐3 1e‐5 1e‐5 5e‐2 ―
kyy cm/s 1e‐4 1e‐5 1e‐5 5e‐3 ―
G psf ― ― ― ― 4.7e7
B psf ― ― ― ― 6.3e7
1 Defines hyperbolic relationship for shear stress versus strain:
2
  
n
 
e
G tan gent   1  R f 
 K ge  Patm   m
  failure 
 Patm
 
2 Defines relationship between elastic bulk modulus and mean confining stress:
me
  
B  K b  Patm   m 
 Patm 

Page | 49
1
Clay Core
Kge = 650
0.8
Modulus Reduction Factor
0.6
0.4 Vucetic and Dobry (1991) for PI = 30

Rf= 0.30 Esyy = 2116. psf Su = 0.18 esyy
0.2 Rf= 0.30 Esyy = 2116. psf Su = 0.33 esyy
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

70
60 Vucetic and Dobry (1991) for PI = 30

Critical Damping Ratio (%)

50 Rf= 0.30 Esyy = 2116. psf Su = 0.33 esyy
40
30
Lower Alluvium
20
Kge = 2400
10
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear Strain Gamma (%)

Figure 33. Modulus reduction and damping behavior of hysteretic model in simple
shear using parameters for clay core.
Page | 50
0.8
Lower Alluvium
Modulus Reduction Factor
Kge = 2400
0.6
0.4
Average (Seed & Idriss 1970)
Idriss 1999 (20 to 50 feet)
0.2 Idriss 1999 (50 to 120 feet)
Rf= 0.30 Esyy = 2116. psf phi = 37 deg
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

70
60 Average (Seed & Idriss 1970)

Critical Damping Ratio (%)

50 Rf= 0.30 Esyy = 2116. psf phi = 37 deg
40
Lower Alluvium
30 Kge = 2400
20
10
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear Strain Gamma (%)

Figure 34. Modulus reduction and damping behavior of hysteretic model in simple
shear using parameters for lower alluvium.
Page | 51
The additional properties used to define the seismic analysis are shown in Table 3. The
range in undrained strength values for the clayey core is approximate. The range was
estimated from torvane test results (Seed et al., 1973) as well as limited CPT tests
reported by Bardet (1995). The generic UBCSAND properties were used in conjunction
with blowcounts corrected to clean sand conditions. The primary analyses assumed
properties based on (N1)60‐50 (or median) blowcounts The Idriss and Boulanger (2006)
correction for fines content was used, which added 5 blows to each blowcount for an
average fines content of 25%. The Idriss and Boulanger (2007) curve for residual
strength Sr was used as shown in Figure 35. The fines content correction for (N1)60 and Sr
was 2 blows for an average fines content of 25%. The residual strength was limited to
the drained strength in any element.
Table 3. Properties used for seismic analysis, USFD.
Hyd. Clay Rolled Lower

Property Units Fill Core Fill Alluvium Rock
Su/σ'vo
Case 1 ― ― 0.13 ― ― ―
Case 2 ― ― 0.25 / 0.13 ― ― ―
3

100*cos(37) +
Su psf ― ― σ'mo*sin(37) ―
σ'mo*sin(37)
K2max ― ― 30 52 110 ―

V s ― ― ― ― ― 3300
Kge 1 ― ― 650 2400 1150 ―
ne 1 ― ― 0.5 0.5 0.5 ―
Rf 1 ― ― 0.3 0.3 0.3 ―
Kb 2 ― ― 650 2400 1150 ―
me 2 ― ― 0.5 0.5 0.5 ―
G psf ― ― ― ― 4.7e7
B psf ― ― ― ― 6.3e7
1 Defines hyperbolic relationship for shear stress versus strain.
2 Defines relationship between elastic bulk modulus and mean confining stress.
3 Peak strength ratio = 0.25. Once peak strength is reached in an element, available
strength ratio reduces to 0.13 in that element.
Page | 52
Figure 35. Residual strength curve (copied from Idriss and Boulanger (2007)).
A limited number of parametric studies were performed. Parameters investigated

include various assumptions for undrained core strength as described in Table 3, the
effect of using (N1)60‐33 blowcounts on triggering in the hydraulic fill, the difference in
response between 904a and 904aR, and the use of alternative values of hydraulic
conductivity in the hydraulic fill shells.
Base analysis predictions
The base analysis uses median blowcounts and a strength ratio of 0.13 in the clayey
core. The stress state just before the start of earthquake loading is shown in Figure 36
while the initial pore pressure distribution is presented on Figure 37. This figure also
shows the ground water levels measured in three observation wells shortly before the
earthquake. These simple measurements suggest the FLAC seepage analysis predicts a

Page | 53
reasonable if somewhat low estimate of pore pressure within the downstream shell of
the embankment.
Results from the base dynamic analyses are presented in Figure 38 to Figure 41. These
figures provide the final response predictions at the end of the post‐earthquake
analysis.
Figure 38 shows the extensive areas of high excess pore pressure that have been
predicted within the upstream shell and near the base of the downstream shell. Much
of the saturated hydraulic fill in the upstream shell is predicted to liquefy, except for a
fairly substantial zone near the core.
Figure 39 shows contours of maximum shear strain predicted within the dam. The
highest shear strains occur near the base of the downstream shell and are associated
with a pronounced downstream movement. Shear strains within the upstream shell are
smaller in magnitude and somewhat more dispersed. The strains in the upstream shell
indicate a shallow circular slip as well as a more deep‐seated movement along the base
of the shell.
Figure 40 presents the final estimate of displacement vectors. The vectors show
predominantly downstream movement of the dam, which generally agrees with the
actual observations and measurements of dam response. A pronounced movement of
the upstream shell into the reservoir is also predicted. However, limited observations
made after the earthquake do not suggest such large movements of the upstream shell.
The crest is predicted to settle almost vertically with little net lateral movement, while
actual measurements show the crest moving significantly downstream.
The differences between observed and predicted displacement are most clearly seen on
Figure 41. In general, the magnitude and orientation of the predicted displacement are
in reasonable agreement with the observed response. The 904aR analysis appears to
overpredict movements of the upstream shell into the reservoir, which affects both the
lateral and vertical movements predicted at the crest. Movements along the top of the
downstream berm appear to be well predicted by the 904aR analysis, although it should
be noted that the analysis does not include settlements due to post‐earthquake
consolidation. Displacements along the downstream slope of the dam are significantly
overpredicted by the model. The actual displacement measurements, although limited,
suggest that strains within the downstream shell were more uniformly distributed over
the height of the fill. This conclusion was developed during the initial 1973 study (Seed
et al. 1973). In contrast, the strains predicted in the 904aR analysis tend to be
concentrated near the base of the hydraulic fill.
Page | 54
Effec. SYY-Stress Contours

-1.00E+04
-8.00E+03
-6.00E+03
-4.00E+03
-2.00E+03
0.00E+00

a. Effective vertical stress (psf)
Effec. SXY-Stress Contours

-5.00E+02
-2.50E+02
0.00E+00
2.50E+02
5.00E+02
7.50E+02
1.00E+03
1.25E+03

b. Shear stress τxy (psf)

Ko contours
2.00E-01
3.00E-01
4.00E-01
5.00E-01
6.00E-01
7.00E-01
8.00E-01
9.00E-01
1.00E+00
1.10E+00

c. Ko contours
Figure 36. Predicted stress state at start of earthquake (base analysis).
Page | 55
Pore pressure contours

1.00E+03
Measurements of GWT 2.00E+03
Zero pore pressure from 3 observation wells 3.00E+03
contour from analysis 4.00E+03
5.00E+03
6.00E+03
v v 7.00E+03
8.00E+03
v

Figure 37. Predicted pore pressures at start of earthquake (base analysis).

Ru contours
2.00E-01
4.00E-01
Original Final 6.00E-01
boundary boundary 8.00E-01
1.00E+00

Figure 38. Peak estimates of pore pressure ratio (base analysis).

Page | 56

Max. shear strain increment
1.00E-01
2.00E-01
3.00E-01
4.00E-01
5.00E-01
6.00E-01

7.00E-01
8.00E-01

Figure 39. Contours of maximum shear strain at end of post‐earthquake analysis
(base analysis).

Peak displacement = 2.9 m

Figure 40. Displaced shape and displacement vectors at end of post‐earthquake analysis
(base analysis).

Page | 57
4
Horizontal Displacement (m)
Observed data
Closed circle: Serff et al., 1976
2
-2 Observed
Base Analysis
-4
2
Observed data
Vertical Displacement (m)

1 Open circle: Harder et al, 1989
-1
Observed
-2
Base Analysis
-3
-50 0 50 100
Horizontal Distance from Crest Centerline (m)

Figure 41. Predicted surface displacements versus observed (Serff, Harder et al 1990).
Page | 58
The base analysis demonstrates that while the 904aR model does not capture all details
of the observed response, it does predict displacement behavior that is generally similar
in both magnitude and pattern to the observed behavior.
Parametric analysis predictions
Several parametric analyses were performed as described in Table 4. All analyses were
identical to the base analysis except as indicated.
Figure 42 presents the predicted surface displacements for Analyses A, B, and C.
Analysis A and B show that a reasonable change in the undrained behavior of the core
had relatively little impact on the predicted displacements. Analysis C shows that using
33rd percentile estimates of blowcount to characterize the liquefaction resistance of the
hydraulic fill produces a modest increase in the predicted deformations.
Figure 43 compares results from the 904a and 904aR models. Two estimates of surface
displacement are shown: one at the end of shaking and the second at the end of the
post‐earthquake analysis. The 904aR model provides a better estimate of the final
horizontal displacement magnitudes, although the 904a model is seen to give a better
prediction of vertical displacements. The difference between the displacement estimate
at the end of shaking and at the end of the post‐earthquake analysis is substantial for
the 904aR analysis and negligible for the 904a analysis. This change in the relative
importance of the post‐earthquake analysis is due to the predicted extent of high excess
pore pressures below the downstream slope. The peak predicted pore pressure ratios
from these two analyses are shown in Figure 44.
Table 4. Summary of parametric analyses, USFD.
(N1)60 Permeability of
for Su / σ'vo Hydraulic Fill Hydraulic Fill
Analysis Case triggering for core Model Shells
Analysis A
median 0.13 904aR Table 2
(base analysis)
0.25 (peak)
Analysis B median 904aR Table 2
0.13 (res)
Analysis C 33rd 0.13 904aR Table 2
Analysis D median 0.13 904a Table 2
Analysis E median 0.13 904aR 0.10  Table 2

Page | 59
Analysis E investigates the influence of the hydraulic conductivity of the hydraulic fill
shells. This analysis is the same as the base analysis except the permeability value in the
shells has been reduced by a factor of 1/10. Predictions of surface displacement for this
case are shown in Figure 45. Reducing the permeability of the shells caused a modest
decrease in the predicted displacements at locations downstream of the crest. One
possible cause is the reduced ability in Analysis E for high pore pressures to migrate
from zones susceptible to liquefaction to zones that are less susceptible. The change in
permeability does have some impact on the distribution of peak excess pore pressure,
as shown in Figure 44.
These limited parametric studies help to confirm the results obtained from the base
analysis by demonstrating only modest variations in the predicted response for analyses
using version 904aR. The studies also show the importance of the post‐earthquake
analysis to the prediction of displacements. In addition, the version 904aR model
provides a somewhat better estimate of behavior in this case as compared version 904a.
Page | 60
4
Observed data
Observed
An. A: Base Analysis

-2
An B: Su2513_N50_904aRdr8
An C: Su13_N3350_904aRdr8
-4

Observed data
1 Open circle: Harder et al, 1989
-1
Observed

-2
An B: Su2513_N50_904aRdr8
An C: Su13_N3350_904aRdr8
-3
Figure 42. Predicted surface displacements for analyses A, B and C.
Page | 61
4
Observed data
0
Observed
An. A: Base Analysis (EOS)
-2
An. D: Su13_N50_904a (EOS)
An. D: Su13_N50_904a
Note: EOS - End of shaking

-4

2
Observed data
Open circle: Harder et al, 1989
1
-1
Observed
An. A: Base Analysis (EOS)
-2 An. D: Su13_N50_904a (EOS)
An. D: Su13_N50_904a
Note: EOS - End of shaking

-3
-50 0 50 100
Horizontal Distance from Crest Centerline (m)

Figure 43. Predicted surface displacements for analyses A and D.
Page | 62
ru Contours
1.00E-01
2.00E-01
3.00E-01
4.00E-01
5.00E-01
6.00E-01
7.00E-01
8.00E-01
9.00E-01
1.00E+00

a. Analysis A (version 904aR)

b. Analysis D (version 904a)

c. Analysis E (version 904aR and reduced shell permeability)
Figure 44. Contours of peak excess pore pressure ratio, ru, for analyses A, D and E.
Page | 63
4
Observed data
Observed

-2
An E: AltK_Su13_N50_904aRdr8
-4

2
Observed data
Open circle: Harder et al, 1989
1
-1
Observed

-2
An E: AltK_Su13_N50_904aRdr8
-3
Figure 45. Predicted surface displacements for analyses A and E.
Page | 64
7 References
Aubertin, M., Chapuis, R.P., and Mbonimpa, M. (2005). “Discussion of ‘Goodbye, Hazen;
Hello, Kozeny‐Carman,’ by W. David Carrier III,” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, August.
Bardet, J.P., Davis, C.A. (1996). “Performance of San Fernando Dams during 1994
Northridge Earthquake,” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 122(7), 554‐564.
Byrne, P.M., Cheung, H., and Yan, L. (1987). “Soil parameters for deformation analysis of
sand masses,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 24(3), 366‐376.
Carrier (III), W.D. (2003). “Goodbye, Hazen; Hello, Kozeny‐Carman,” technical note, ASCE
JGGE, 129(11), 1054‐1056.
Cetin, K.O. et al. (2004). “Standard Penetration Test‐Based Probabilistic and
Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential,” ASCE JGGE 130(12),
1314‐1340.
Harder, L.F. Jr., and Boulanger, R.W. (1997) “Application of Kσ and Kα Correction
Factors,” Proc. of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,
Report NCEER‐97‐0022, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, SUNY
Buffalo, N.Y., pp. 167‐190.
Harder, L. F., Hammond, W. D., Driller, M. W., and Hollister, N. (1989). The August 1,
1975 Oroville earthquake investigation, Bulletin 203‐88, Calif. Dept. of Water Resources.
Idriss, I.M. (1999). Personal communication.
Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2006). “Semi‐empirical procedures for evaluating
liquefaction potential during earthquakes,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
26(2006), 115‐130.
Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2003). “Estimating K for use in Evaluating Cyclic
Resistance of Sloping Ground,” In Proc., Eighth U.S.‐Japan Workshop on Earthquake
Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures Against Liquefaction,
Technical Report MCEER‐03‐0003, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research.
Idriss, I. M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2007). “Residual Shear Strength of Liquefied Soils,” In
Proc., 27th USSD Annual Meeting and Conference, March 2007.
Page | 65
Marcuson, W.F., Hynes, M.E., and Franklin, A.G. (1990). “Evaluation and Use of Residual
Strength in Seismic Safety Analysis of Embankment Dams,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol 6.,
No. 3, pp. 529‐572.
Martin, G.R., Finn, W.D.L., and Seed, H.B. (1975). “Fundamentals of liquefaction under
cyclic loading,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 101(GT5),
pp. 423–438.
Matsuoka, H., and Nakai, T. 1977. “Stress‐strain relationship of soil based on the SMP.”
In Proceedings of the Specialty Session 9, 9th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, pp. 153‐162.
Rowe, P.W. 1962. “The stress‐dilatancy relation for static equilibrium of an assembly of
particles in contact.” In Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Mathematical and
Physical Sciences, Series A, 269: 500‐557.
Seed, H.B., Martin, P.P. and Lysmer, J. (1976). “Pore‐Water Pressure Changes during Soil
Liquefaction,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. GT4,
pp. 323‐346.
Seed, H.B., Lee, K.L., Idriss, I.M., & Makdisi, F. (1973). “Analysis of the Slides in the San
Fernando Dams during the Earthquake of Feb. 9, 1971.” Report No. EERC 73‐2,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Serff, N., Seed, H.B., Makdisi, F.I., and Chang, C.‐Y. (1976). “Earthquake Induced
Deformations of Earth Dams,” Rep. No. EERC 76‐4, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley.
Tokimatsu, K. & Seed, H.B. (1987). “Evaluation of Settlements in Sands due to
Earthquake Shaking,” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 113(8), 861‐878.
Youd, T. L., Idriss, I.M., et al. (2001). “Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report
from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction
resistance of soils.” J. Geotech. And Geoenvir. Engrg., ASCE, 127(10), 817‐833.
Page | 66
8 Appendices
Appendix 1:
Additional references for UBCSAND
Project Analysis Type Reference
Centrifuge Seid‐Karbasi, Byrne, Naesgaard, Park,

Sloping ground
prediction Wijewickreme, & Phillips (2005)
Sloping ground with silt Centrifuge Naesgaard, Byrne, Seid‐Karbasi, & Park
layers simulation (2005)
Centrifuge Yang, Naesgaard, Byrne, Adalier, &

Massey Tunnel
simulation Abdoun (2004).
Centrifuge Byrne, Park, Beaty, Sharp, Gonzalez, &

High confining stress
simulation Abdoun (2004).
Centrifuge
Sloping ground Byrne, Park & Beaty (2003)
simulation
Mochikochi Dam No. 1 Case history Byrne and Seid‐Karbasi (2003).
Note: Selected papers can be downloaded from
http://www.civil.ubc.ca/liquefaction/publications.htm

References:
Byrne, P.M., Park, S.S., Beaty, M., Sharp, M.K., Gonzalez, L., & Abdoun, T. (2004).
“Numerical modeling of liquefaction and comparison with centrifuge tests,” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 41(2):193‐211.
Byrne, P.M., Park, S.S. & Beaty, M. (2003). “Seismic liquefaction: centrifuge and
numerical modeling,” in Proc., 3rd International FLAC Symposium, Sudbury, October.
Byrne, P.M. & Seid‐Karbasi, M. (2003). “Seismic stability of impoundments,” 17th
Annual Symposium, Vancouver Geotechnical Society, Vancouver, B.C.

Page | 67
Naesgaard, E., Byrne, P.M., Seid‐Karbasi, M. & Park, S.S. (2005). “Modeling flow
liquefaction, its mitigation, and comparison with centrifuge tests,” Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering Satellite Conference, Osaka, Japan
Seid‐Karbasi, M., Byrne, P.M., Naesgaard, E., Park, S.S., Wijewickreme, D. & Phillips, R.
(2005). “Response of Sloping Ground with Liquefiable Materials During an Earthquake: A
Class A Prediction,” in Proceedings, 11th International Conference, International
Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Italy.
Yang, D., Naesgaard, E., Byrne, P.M., Adalier, K. & Abdoun, T. (2004). “Numerical model
verification and calibration of George Massey Tunnel using centrifuge models,”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 41(5): 921‐942.
Other References:
Beaty, M. & Byrne, P.M. (1998). An effective stress model for predicting liquefaction
behaviour of sand. In P. Dakoulas, M. Yegian, & R. D. Holtz (Eds.), Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No.
75, Vol. 1, Proceedings of a Specialty Conference (pp. 766‐777). Seattle: ASCE.
Puebla, H., Byrne, P.M., & Phillips, R. (1997). Analysis of CANLEX Liquefaction
Embankments: Prototype and Centrifuge Models. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 34(5),
641‐657.
Page | 68
Appendix 2:
Generic input parameters for UBCSAND 904aR
water bulk = ; Generic input parameters assumed fmod = 5e5 kPa
prop m_n160 = ; Assign appropriate value of (N1)60cs
prop m_pa = ; Assign value of atmospheric pressure in model units
prop m_phicv = 33.
prop porosity = 0.5
def properties
loop i (1,izones)
loop j (1,jzones)
;ELASTIC
$N160 = z_prop(i,j,’m_n160’)
z_prop(i,j,’m_kge’) = 21.7*20.* $N160^.333 ;Shear Mod
z_prop(i,j,’m_kb’) = z_prop(i,j,’m_kge’)*.7 ;Bulk mod
z_prop(i,j,’m_me’) = 0.5
z_prop(i,j,’m_ne’) = 0.5
;
;PLASTIC PROPERTIES
z_prop(i,j,’m_kgp’) = z_prop(i,j,’m_kge’)* $N160 ^2*.003 +100.0 ;shear Mod
z_prop(i,j,’m_np’) = .4
z_prop(i,j,’m_phif’) = z_prop(i,j,’m_phicv’) + $N160 /10.0
z_prop(i,j,’m_phif’) = z_prop(i,j,’m_phif’) + max(0.0,( $N160 -15.)/5.)
;
;plastic modification factors
z_prop(i,j,’m_hfac2’) = 1.0 ;Secondary hardener
z_prop(i,j,’m_hfac3’) = 1.0 ;dilation "hardener"
; m_hfac1 = a(N) * (Sigvo'/Patm)^b(N)
; where
; a(N) = 1.05 -0.03*N +0.004*N^2 -0.000185*N^3 +2.92e-6*N^4
; b(N) = 1./(-0.424 -0.259*N +0.00763*N^2)
$a_N = 1.05 -0.03*$N160 +0.004*$N160 ^2
$a_N = $a_N -0.000185*$N160 ^3 +2.92e-6*$N160 ^4
$b_N = 1./(-0.424 -0.259*$N160 +0.00763*$N160 ^2)
$SigP = max((-syy(i,j)-pp(i,j))/ z_prop(i,j,’m_pa’),1.0)
z_prop(i,j,’m_hfac1’) = $a_N * ($SigP)^$b_N
;
;failure ratio --same as in Hyperbolic model
z_prop(i,j,’m_rf’) = 1.1*$N160 ^(-0.15)
z_prop(i,j,’m_rf’) = min(z_prop(i,j,’m_rf’),.99)
;
;plastic anisotrophy
z_prop(i,j,’m_anisofac’) = 1.0 ; Generic parameters do not address anisotropy
z_prop(i,j,’m_static’) = 1.0 ; = 1.0 for initial static setup; = 0.0 for
dynamic
end_loop
end_loop
end
Page | 69

UBCSAND UDM Documentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UBCSAND UDM Documentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UBCSAND UDM Documentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Description of UBCSAND Version 904a

2.1 Elastic Response

2.2 Plastic Response

Normal Effective Stress,  

Stress Ratio, (= /’ )

Plastic Shear Strain,  p

Plastic Potential Increment

3 Description of UBCSAND Version 904aR

Example of significant cycles

ratio = 1 ratio > 1

3.1 Static analysis mode

4 Single Element Behavior of UBCSAND 904aR

4.1 Typical stress-strain and stress path behavior

Typical behavior of the UBCSAND model is shown in Figure 7 to Figure 10. Monotonic

about 2.5%. For both cases, the Ko = 0.5 response is stiffer than the Ko = 1.0 response,

Shear Stress Sxy (kPa)

-10 (N1)60 =5 Ko = 1.0

(N1)60 =15 Ko = 1.0

-0.06 (N1)60 =5 Ko = 1.0

-0.08 (N1)60 =5 Ko = 0.5

Shear Stress Sxy (kPa)

-10 (N1)60 =5 Ko = 1.0

(N1)60 =15 Ko = 1.0

-10 (N1)60 =5 Ko = 1.0

4.2 Cyclic strength curve

4.3 Weighting curve

Idriss and Boulanger (2006)

Cetin et al. (2004) for 20% probability of liquefaction

(N1)60 =25, CRR15 =0.292

Dashed lines show best fit power curves.

4.4 Effect of initial static shear stress

(N1)60 =5, CRR15 =0.072, Sigvo' = 4 atm

(N1)60 =15, CRR15 =0.160, Sigvo' = 1 atm

(N1)60 =25, CRR15 =0.292, Sigvo' = 1 atm

(N1)60 =25, CRR15 =0.292, Sigvo' = 4 atm

Idriss & Boulanger

Dashed lines show

0.5 Dashed lines show

4.5 Modulus reduction and damping behavior

shear strain cycles was evaluated for UBCSAND and compared to typical relationships.

Shear strain (%)

60% UBCSAND (N1)60=10 Ko=0.5

Idriss curve for sand (1999)

Shear Strain (%)

4.6 Effect of confining stress

(N1)60 = 15, Sigvo' = 1 Atm

(N1)60 = 15, Sigvo' = 4 Atm

4.8 Rate of excess pore pressure generation and volumetric strain

Range of data (Seed et al. 1976)

4.9 Comparison to cyclic DSS data on Fraser River sand

First 3 cycles of loading

-20 DSS data

-20 DSS data

5.1 Revised ru computation

6 Case History Comparison

6.1 Upper San Fernando Dam

0.6 pga = 0.60 g

HF (upper) 7.0 – 14.6 10 7

HF (mid) 14.6 – 18.6 14.5 11