See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245294607

Pore Pressure Generation Models for Sands and Silty Soils Subjected to Cyclic
Loading

Article  in  Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · October 2008

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:10(1490)

CITATIONS READS
104 1,297

3 authors:

Carmine Paul Polito Russell A Green

Valparaiso University (USA) Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
29 PUBLICATIONS   917 CITATIONS    209 PUBLICATIONS   2,570 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jongwon Lee
Arup
22 PUBLICATIONS   209 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Number of Equivalent Strain Cycles for Active Tectonic and Stable Continental Regions View project

Liquefaction Risk Mitigation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Russell A Green on 08 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Pore Pressure Generation Models for Sands and Silty Soils
Subjected to Cyclic Loading
Carmine P. Polito, P.E., M.ASCE1; Russell A. Green, P.E., M.ASCE2; and Jongwon Lee, S.M.ASCE3

Abstract: This paper discusses the applicability of two simple models for predicting pore water pressure generation in nonplastic silty
soil during cyclic loading. The first model was developed by Seed et al. in the 1970s and relates the pore pressure generated to the cycle
ratio, which is the ratio of the number of applied cycles of loading to the number of cycles required to cause liquefaction. The second
model is the Green-Mitchell-Polito model proposed by Green et al. in 2000, which relates pore pressure generation to the energy
dissipated within the soil. Based upon the results of approximately 150 cyclic triaxial tests, the writers show that both models are
applicable to silty soils. A nonlinear mixed effects model was used for regression analyses to develop correlations for the necessary
calibration parameters. The results show that the trends in both ␣ and pseudoenergy capacity calibration parameters for the Seed et al. and
Green et al. pore pressure generation models, respectively, differ significantly for soils containing less than and greater than ⬃35% fines,
consistent with the limiting fines content concept.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2008兲134:10共1490兲
CE Database subject headings: Dynamic analysis; Liquefaction; Pore pressure; Regression models; Silts; Sands; Cyclic loads.

Introduction results of that evaluation are presented, along with correlations

The generation of pore pressures in soils during cyclic loadings,
such as earthquakes or pile driving induced loadings, has been
studied for many years 共Lee and Albaisa 1974; Booker et al.
1976; Martin et al. 1975兲 and is still an area of active research
共Peng et al. 2004; Sun and Yuan 2006兲. In particular, the cyclic
behavior of fine-grained soils has received considerable attention
after the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake in Turkey, in which these soils
exhibited behavior previously considered by some to be limited to
coarser grained soils 共Bray et al. 2004; Boulanger and Idriss
2004; Martin et al. 2004; Wijewickreme et al. 2005; Boulanger
and Idriss 2006; Sanin and Wijewickreme 2006兲. In an attempt to
better understand, quantify, and model the pore pressure genera-
tion in sands and nonplastic silty soils, the writers herein examine
the results of approximately 150 cyclic triaxial tests performed on
soils ranging from clean sands to pure silt, with the specimens
having a wide range of densities and subjected to a range of
loading amplitudes. The test results are used to evaluate the ap-
plicability of two existing models for predicting excess pore pres-
sures in silty sands and to establish correlations for estimating the
calibration parameters required by the models.
After a review of the development of the two models, the
testing program used to evaluate them is discussed. Next, the
1
Associate Professor, Valparaiso Univ., Valparaiso, IN 46383. E-mail:
carmine.polito@valpo.edu
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061. E-mail: rugreen@vt.edu
3
Doctoral Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.
Note. Discussion open until March 1, 2009. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. The manuscript for this paper was
submitted for review and possible publication on November 3, 2006;
approved on March 17, 2008. This paper is part of the Journal of Geo-
technical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 10,
October 1, 2008. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2008/10-1490–1500/$25.00.
developed for estimating the calibration parameters for the mod-
els. A brief overview of the validation of the correlations is then
presented. Last, a discussion is given on using the models, on the
relative accuracy of the two models, and on the significance of the
proposed calibration parameter correlations.
Models
The excess pore pressures generated in a soil during cyclic load-
ing can be separated into two components: transient and residual.
In saturated soils, the transient pore pressures are equal to the
changes in the applied mean normal stresses resulting from the
dynamic loading 共Scott 1963; Lambe and Whitman 1969兲. Be-
cause the generated pore pressures are equal to the change in total
stress acting on the soil, the transient excess pore pressures will
have little influence on the effective stresses acting on the soil.
Conversely, the residual excess pore pressures result from the
progressive collapse of the soil skeleton 共i.e., plastic deforma-
tions兲 and, thus, alter the effective stresses acting on the soil.
Consequently, the residual excess pore pressures directly influ-
ence the strength and stiffness of the soil. During stress-controlled
cyclic tests, the residual pore pressures are those present at the
time when the applied deviator stress is equal to 共or crosses兲 zero
共Dobry et al. 1982; Green et al. 2000兲.
Residual excess pore pressures are often quantified in terms of
residual excess pore pressure ratio 共or pore pressure ratio兲. The
pore pressure ratio 共ru兲 is defined as the ratio of the residual
excess pore pressure 共uxs兲 to the initial effective confining stress
共␴⬘o兲 acting on the soil 共i.e., ru = uxs / ␴⬘o兲. This ratio varies from
zero 共i.e., no residual excess pore pressures兲 to unity 共i.e., com-
plete transfer of the load to the pore water or “liquefaction”兲 and,
therefore, provides more insight than the magnitude of the re-
sidual excess pore pressure alone. Below, two of the simpler mod-
els for predicting ru in soils subjected to cyclic loading are
discussed.

1490 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008

Downloaded 24 Jun 2009 to 128.173.204.142. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright

Fig. 1. Observed bounds of residual excess pore pressure generation
as a function of cycle ratio and approximate average of bounds given
by Eq. 共2兲 with ␣ = 0.7 关adapted from Seed et al. 共1975b兲兴
Seed et al. Model
In the 1970s, Seed et al. 共1975b兲 developed an empirical model
关Eq. 共1兲兴 for predicting ru using data from tests performed on
clean sands. In their model, ru is a function of the cycle ratio,
which is the ratio of the number of applied uniform cycles of
loading 共N兲 to the number of cycles required to cause liquefaction
in the soil 共Nl兲, and an empirically determined parameter ␣
ru =
1 1
+ arcsin 2 ·
2 ␲
N
Nl
冉 冉冊 冊 1/␣
−1
Later, Booker et al. 共1976兲 proposed an alternative, somewhat
simplified version of this equation
2
ru = arcsin
␲
N
Nl
冉冊 1/2␣
Each of the above equations makes use of two calibration pa-
rameters 共i.e., Nl and ␣兲 that can be determined from stress-
controlled cyclic triaxial tests, as well as other types of undrained,
cyclic tests. For a given soil, Nl increases as relative density in-
creases and decreases as the magnitude of loading increases, with
the magnitude of loading typically expressed in terms of cyclic
stress ratio 共CSR兲. The use of Nl has its drawbacks as it can only
be applied to liquefiable soils. However, “nonliquefiable” soils,
such as dense sands and soils with plastic fines, can still undergo
significant pore pressure increases and deformations as a result of
cyclic softening 共Boulanger and Idriss 2006兲.
The second parameter ␣ is an empirical constant. Both
Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲 have been found to produce results that are in
good agreement with the results from cyclic triaxial tests 共Lee and
Albaisa 1974兲 and cyclic simple shear tests 共DeAlba et al. 1975兲
on clean sands. Lee and Albaisa’s recommended upper and lower
bounds of residual pore pressure ratio for Monterey No. 0 sand
are shown in Fig. 1. Also shown in this figure is the predicted
residual excess pore pressure ratio curve generated using Eq. 共2兲
with ␣ = 0.7 关i.e., the recommended value for clean sands per
Booker et al. 共1976兲兴.
In addition to the two calibration parameters, implementation
of either Eq. 共1兲 or 共2兲 for use in earthquake site response analy-
ses requires that the earthquake motion be converted to an equi-
valent number of uniform cycles 共Seed et al. 1983兲. Such
load conversion procedures are outlined in Seed et al. 共1975a兲,
Liu et al. 共2001兲, Green and Terri 共2005兲, and Hancock and Bom-
mer 共2005兲. This required conversion is the greatest disadvantage
in using either Eq. 共1兲 or 共2兲 for predicting pore pressure genera-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1491
Downloaded 24 Jun 2009 to 128.173.204.142. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
tion in soils subjected to earthquake-type loadings. The Green
Mitchell Polito 共GMP兲 pore pressure generation model discussed
below alleviates the need for converting earthquake motions to an
equivalent uniform load.
GMP Model
Green et al. 共2000兲 developed the GMP model, which is an em-
pirical expression that relates ru to the energy dissipated per unit
volume of soil 共i.e., unit energy兲. The GMP model is a special
case of the more general energy-based model proposed by Berrill
and Davis 共1985兲. The GMP model was developed using data
from tests performed on nonplastic silt-sand mixtures that ranged
in fines contents from clean sands to pure silts. While a complete
discussion of the GMP model and its development is provided in
Green et al. 共2000兲 and Green 共2001兲, a brief summary is pro-
vided here.
The GMP model is
ru = 冑 Ws
PEC
艋1 共3兲
where Ws = energy dissipated per unit volume of soil divided
by the initial effective confining pressure 共i.e., normalized
unit energy兲; and PEC⫽“pseudoenergy capacity,” a calibration
共1兲
parameter.
For general loadings, increments in Ws can be related to stress
conditions and increments in strain by Eq. 共4兲
1
dWs = 共␴⬘vd␧v + 2␴⬘hd␧h + ␶vhd␥vh + ␶hvd␥hv兲 共4兲
共2兲
where dWs = incremental dissipated energy normalized by the ini-
␴⬘o
tial effective mean stress; ␴⬘v = effective vertical stress; d␧v
= incremental vertical strain; ␴h⬘ = effective horizontal stress; d␧h
= incremental radial strain; ␶vh = horizontal shear stress acting on a
plane having a vertical normal vector; d␥vh = incremental shear
strain resulting from ␶vh; ␶hv = vertical shear stress acting on a
plane having a horizontal normal vector; d␥hv = incremental shear
strain resulting from ␶hv; and ␴o⬘ = initial effective stress.
For undrained cyclic triaxial test loadings, Ws in Eq. 共4兲 can be
computed numerically
n−1
1
Ws = 兺 共␴d,i+1 + ␴d,i兲共␧a,i+1 − ␧a,i兲
2␴⬘o i=1
共5兲
where n = number of load increments to liquefaction; ␴d,i,
and ␴d,i+1 = applied deviator stress at load increment i and i + 1,
respectively; and ␧a,i and ␧a,i+1 = axial strain at load increment
i and i + 1, respectively. Fig. 2 graphically shows the application
of Eq. 共5兲. As may be observed from this figure, Eq. 共5兲 is simply
the trapezoidal rule used to compute the area bounded by the
stress-strain hysteresis loops divided by the initial effective con-
fining stress, which is the normalized unit energy.
The pseudoenergy capacity 共PEC兲 is determined from cyclic
test data by plotting ru versus the square root of Ws. The square
root of PEC is the value on the horizontal axis corresponding to
the intersection of a straight line drawn through the origin and the
point of ru = 0.65 and a horizontal line drawn at ru = 1.0. This
process of determining PEC is illustrated graphically in Fig. 3.
Numerically, this procedure simplifies to

Fig. 2. Dissipated energy per unit volume for a soil sample in cyclic
triaxial loading is defined as the area bound by the stress-strain hys-
teresis loops 关adapted from Green et al. 共2000兲兴
Ws,ru=0.65
PEC =
0.4225
where Ws,ru=0.65⫽value of Ws corresponding to ru = 0.65. The term
pseudoenergy capacity or PEC is used to indicate that the calibra-
tion parameter has a physical significance, rather than
just being a general curve fit parameter. Specifically, PEC is ap-
proximately equal to, but generally less than, the normalized unit
energy dissipated in a sample at the point of initial liquefaction
共i.e., when ru = 1.0兲. The definition of PEC and the procedures for
determining it were developed empirically from analyzing numer-
ous cyclic tests 共Green et al. 2000; Green 2001兲.
Physical Properties of the Soils and Specimens
Used in This Study
The data from the 145 cyclic triaxial tests used to evaluate the
proposed models were culled from nearly 300 cyclic triaxial tests
共Polito 1999; Polito and Martin 2001兲. The specimens tested in
the study were comprised of one of two base sands, mixed with
various amounts of nonplastic silt. Eight combinations of sand
Fig. 3. Graphic illustration of how PEC is determined from cyclic
test data; the data shown in this figure are from a cyclic triaxial test
conducted on Yatesville clean sand 关adapted from Green et al. 共2000兲兴
1492 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008
Downloaded 24 Jun 2009 to 128.173.204.142. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Fig. 4. Distribution of silt contents for specimens used in this study
and silt were created using each of the two sands, with silt con-
tents varying from 4–75% by weight. Additionally, tests were
performed on clean sand and pure silt specimens. The distribution
of the number of specimens tested at each silt content is given in
共6兲
Fig. 4.
The first sand used in the testing program was Monterey No.
0/30, a commercially available sand from California. It has the
same mineralogy and a similar gradation to Monterey No. 0 sand,
which has been used in numerous liquefaction studies in the past
共Booker et al. 1976; Silver 1977兲. Monterey No. 0/30 is a medium
to fine sand, having over 98% retained between the No. 20
共0.84 mm兲 and No. 100 共0.15 mm兲 sieves. It has a median grain
size D50 of 0.43 mm and its grains are subangular to subrounded
in shape.
The second sand used in the study was Yatesville sand. It
consists of the coarse fraction of Yatesville silty sand, which was
obtained from a dam site in Louisa County, Kentucky. It is a
medium to fine sand, having approximately 99% passing the No.
20 共0.84 mm兲, 45% passing the No. 100 共0.15 mm兲 sieves, and a
median grain size D50 of 0.18 mm. Its grains are subangular to
subrounded in shape.
The silt used in the study was derived from the fine-grained
portion of the Yatesville silty sand. It has a maximum grain size
of 0.074 mm, a minimum grain size of 0.004 mm, and a median
grain size D50 of 0.03 mm. The silt is nonplastic, with no discern-
ible liquid or plastic limit. Grain size distributions for both of the
sands and the silt are presented in Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. Grain size distributions for the soils used in this study
Fig. 6. Distribution of relative densities for specimens used in this
study
Polito and Martin 共2001兲 have shown that the liquefaction of
sands and nonplastic silts is more a function of relative density
than of void ratio. Unfortunately, there is no applicable ASTM
procedure for determining minimum index void ratio over the
entire range of silt contents investigated. The vibratory table
method 共ASTM 2006a兲 is limited to a maximum fines content of
15%, while Proctor tests do not always produce accurate, repeat-
able results for clean sands. Therefore, vibratory table and stan-
dard 共ASTM 2007b兲 and modified Proctor 共ASTM 2007a兲 tests
were performed on each soil mixture 共Fig. 4兲. In agreement with
the findings of Lee and Fitton 共1968兲, the vibratory table tests
yielded maximum dry densities similar to those produced by the
modified Proctor test. Because the vibratory table tests were
found to give more repeatable results, they were used to define
the minimum index void ratios used in this study.
Similarly, there is no applicable ASTM procedure for deter-
mining maximum index void ratio over the entire range of silt
contents investigated. The minimum density method 共ASTM
2006b兲 is limited to a maximum fines content of 15%. Despite
this limitation, the maximum void ratio 共and corresponding mini-
mum index density兲 for each soil mixture were determined in
general accordance with ASTM 共2006b兲. Both Methods B and C
of this standard were performed. While both methods were found
to give similar results, the values of minimum index densities
共and corresponding maximum index void ratios兲 determined using
Method B were found to be more reproducible, and thus, were
used in the study.
The test specimens used in this study were selected from ap-
proximately 300 tests based upon two criteria:
• Possessing a relative density between 0 and 110%; and
• Reaching initial liquefaction 共i.e., ru = 1.0兲 in more than 2, but
less than 60 cycles.
These criteria were used because they represent a probable range
of densities and cyclic loadings for soils under natural conditions.
As previously noted, 145 of the 300 available tests met both cri-
teria. The distributions of the specimens based upon their relative
density and the number of cycles required to liquefy them Nl are
presented in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively.
The specimens were 71 mm 共2.8 in.兲 in diam and 154 mm
共6.1 in.兲 in height and were formed by moist tamping at a water
content that produced 50% saturation in the specimen. In order to
obtain a uniform density throughout the specimen, the undercom-
paction method of specimen preparation proposed by Ladd 共1978兲
was used. Testing was performed using an electropneumatic cy-
clic triaxial testing apparatus designed by Professor Clarence
Chan 共Chan 1985兲. The tests were performed in accordance with
the procedures set forth by Silver 共1977兲.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1493
Downloaded 24 Jun 2009 to 128.173.204.142. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Fig. 7. Distribution of number of the cycles to initial liquefaction Nl
for specimens used in this study
Membrane compliance effects can affect the pore pressures
measured in a triaxial specimen if the membrane penetrates sig-
nificantly into the voids on the surface of the specimen. Due to
the relatively small grain sizes involved, the maximum membrane
penetration resulted in a decrease in specimen volume of less than
1.4% of the void volume. Due to this small percentage, no cor-
rection for membrane compliance was applied to the test data.
Complete details of the testing procedures are provided in Polito
共1999兲.
Correlation for ␣
As outlined in Seed et al. 共1983兲, the number of cycles Nl to
“initial liquefaction” 共i.e., ru = 1.0兲 can be estimated by back-
calculation from the “simplified” liquefaction evaluation proce-
dure 共Youd et al. 2001兲. This can be done by estimating the cyclic
resistance ratio 共i.e., the CSR required to cause liquefaction in
15 cycles, or in a M7.5 earthquake兲 and then applying a correla-
tion relating the number of equivalent cycles to earthquake mag-
nitude to adjust for the actual applied CSR.
Once Nl has been estimated, Eq. 共2兲 can then be used to esti-
mate ru 共and residual pore pressures兲 if an appropriate value of
the exponent ␣ can be estimated. A correlation relating ␣ to rela-
tive density 共Dr兲, cyclic stress ratio 共CSR兲, and fines content 共FC兲
is presented in the following.
For each of the 145 cyclic triaxial specimens tested, the cycle
ratio 共N / Nl兲 and corresponding ru values were determined.
Eq. 共2兲 was then fit to the data from each test, and ␣ was selected
to provide the best fit of each data set. A goodness of fit parameter
R2 was calculated for the test data using the expression
兺i=1
n
共Y i − Ȳ兲2 − 兺i=1
n
共Y i − Ŷ i兲2
R2 = 共7兲
兺i=1
n
共Y i − Ȳ兲2
where Y i = ru measured at the ith cycle ratio; Ȳ = average value of
all of ru recorded during the test; and Ŷ i = ru predicted using
Eq. 共2兲 for the ith cycle ratio.
It was found that Eq. 共2兲 did an excellent job of modeling the
pore pressure generation over the range of soils and densities
tested. A histogram of the R2 values is given in Fig. 8. As may be
observed from this figure, all the R2 values are greater than 0.8,
with the majority being greater than 0.94. Thus, although it was
initially based on clean sands, Eq. 共2兲 is equally applicable to
nonplastic silts and silty sands.
Nonlinear mixed effect 共NLME兲 models were used in regres-
sion analyses to develop correlations for estimating ␣. The main
Fig. 8. Histogram of R2 values for the Seed et al. model fit to data
from 145 cyclic triaxial tests

advantages of using NLME models in regression analyses over

more commonly used regression models is that the cyclic triaxial
data can be grouped according to fines content and that the intra-
group and intergroup errors, as well as total error, of the regressed
equation can be computed 共Pinheiro and Bates 2000兲. Others who
have used NLME models in regression analyses of geotechnical/
earthquake data include Abrahamson and Silva 共1996兲, Liu et al.
共2001兲, and Rathje et al. 共2004兲. Several forms of equations were
used in the regression analyses, with the following giving the
lowest total standard deviation 共␴tot兲:
␣ = c1 · FC + c2 · Dr + c3 · CSR + c4 共8兲
where Dr= relative density in percent; CSR= cyclic stress ratio;
FC= fines content in percent; and c1, c2, c3, c4, and c5 are regres-
sion coefficients 共for FC⬍ 35%: c1 = 0.01166; c2 = 0.007397; c3
= 0.01034; and c4 = 0.5058; and for FC艌 35%: c1 = 0.002149; c2
= −0.0009398; c3 = 1.667; and c4 = 0.4285兲. For this equation and
regression coefficients, ␴tot = 0.220 and 0.138 for FC⬍ 35% and
FC艌 35%, respectively. A plot of the standardized residuals of the
fitted data is given in Fig. 9, where the standardized residuals are Fig. 10. Correlation for ␣: 共a兲 ␣ as a function of CSR for three
the intragroup errors divided by the corresponding intragroup different FC and Dr; 共b兲 ␣ as a function of Dr for three different CSR
standard deviations 共Pinheiro and Bates 2000兲. and FC
Eq. 共8兲 is plotted in Figs. 10共a and b兲 as a function of CSR and
Dr, respectively, for various FC. As may be observed from these
figures and Eq. 共8兲, for FC⬍ 35%, ␣ is relatively independent of
CSR, but increases with increasing FC and Dr. In contrast, for
FC艌 35%, ␣ increases significantly as CSR increases, but is rela- tively independent of Dr, decreasing slightly as Dr increases.
Plotted also in these figures are lines corresponding to ␣ = 0.7,
which is the value recommended by Booker et al. 共1976兲 for clean
sands. Contrary to Booker et al.’s recommendation, Fig. 10 shows
that ␣ = 0.7 is too low, except for silty sands subjected to small
CSRs.
Finally, the fact that the correlation for ␣ 关i.e., Eq. 共8兲兴 changes
trends for sands having FC less than and greater than 35% is not
altogether surprising, as it is consistent with the limiting silt con-
tent concept 共Polito 1999; Polito and Martin 2001; Green et al.
2006兲. The limiting silt content is the maximum amount of silt
that can be contained in the void space while maintaining a con-
tiguous sand skeleton. The limiting silt content is the transition
point below which the soil structure is primarily one of silt grains
contained within a sand matrix and above which it is predomi-
nantly sand grains suspended in a silt matrix with little, if any,
sand grain to sand grain contact. Fig. 11 provides a visual descrip-
tion of these differing conditions. The Monterey No. 0/30 and
Yatesville sands used in the study have limiting silt contents be-
Fig. 9. Standardized residuals of the fitted ␣ values tween 25 and 36%.

1494 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008

Downloaded 24 Jun 2009 to 128.173.204.142. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright

Fig. 11. Visual description of the limiting silt content: 共a兲 below the
limiting silt content; 共b兲 at the limiting silt content; and 共c兲 above the
limiting silt content
Correlation for PEC
While Seed et al.’s pore pressure generation model requires two
calibration parameters 共Nl and ␣兲, the GMP model requires only a
single calibration factor 共i.e., PEC兲. However, the main advantage
of the GMP model over Seed et al.’s model is that the ground
motion does not need to be converted into uniform cycles. For
each of the 145 cyclic triaxial specimens tested, PEC was com-
puted using Eq. 共6兲. Using these PEC values in Eq. 共3兲, R2 was
then calculated for each test. A histogram of the resulting values
is given in Fig. 12. As may be observed from this figure, the
majority of the R2 values are greater than 0.92, indicating that the
GMP model gives fairly reasonable predictions of the generated
pore pressures.
Similar to the regression analyses discussed above, several
forms of equations were used in the regression analyses for PEC,
with the following giving the lowest total standard deviation
共␴tot兲:
Fig. 12. Histogram of R2 values for the GMP model fit to data from
145 cyclic triaxial tests
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1495
Downloaded 24 Jun 2009 to 128.173.204.142. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Fig. 13. Standardized residuals of the fitted PEC values
ln共PEC兲 = 再 exp共c3 · Dr兲 + c4 if FC ⬍ 35%
c1 · FCc2 + exp共c3 · Dr兲 + c4 if FC 艌 35%
冎 共9兲
where Dr= relative density in percent; and c1, c2, c3, and c4 are
regression coefficients 共c1 = −0.597; c2 = 0.312; c3 = 0.0139; and
c4 = −1.021兲. For this equation and regression coefficients,
␴tot ln共PEC兲 = 0.6591. A plot of the standardized residuals of the fit-
ted data is given in Fig. 13.
Eq. 共9兲 is plotted in Fig. 14 for various FC as a function of Dr.
As may be observed from this figure and Eq. 共9兲, for FC⬍ 35%,
PEC increases as Dr increases, and decreases as FC increases.
In contrast, for FC艌 35%, PEC is relatively independent of Dr
and FC, increasing slightly as Dr increases and decreasing
slightly as FC increases. As with the trends identified for ␣
关Eq. 共8兲 and Fig. 10兴, the trends observed from Fig. 14 are con-
sistent with the limiting silt content concept.
Correlation Validation
In order to check the validity of the correlations for ␣ and PEC,
the Seed et al. and GMP models were used to predict pore pres-
sures generated in a series of cyclic triaxial tests performed on
specimens having various mixtures of Yatesville sand and silt.
Fig. 14. Plot of the correlation for PEC as a function of DR for
various FC
Table 1. Validation Data for ␣ and PEC Correlations
␣ PEC
Fines Relative Cyclic
content density stress Predicted Predicted
共%兲 共%兲 ratio value R2 value R2
4 38.3 0.207 0.838 0.906 1.978 0.464
7 30.4 0.201 0.815 0.872 1.658 0.879
17 44.1 0.199 1.032 0.836 2.280 0.644
26 39.3 0.192 1.101 0.818 2.024 0.732
37 56.3 0.186 0.765 0.472 0.508 0.922
50 79.1 0.182 0.765 0.691 0.959 0.869
75 80.7 0.202 0.851 0.908 0.783 0.708
100 83.9 0.187 0.876 0.963 0.723 0.773

These tests were not part of the dataset used to develop the ␣ and
PEC correlations. For each specimen, values of ␣ and PEC were
predicted using Eqs. 共8兲 and 共9兲, respectively, and the expected
pore pressures generated in each specimen were predicted using
Eqs. 共2兲 and 共3兲. The predicted and measured pore pressures were
then compared and R2 values were calculated. The results are
summarized in Table 1. Additionally, plots of predicted and mea-
sured pore pressures are shown in Figs. 15 and 16 for the speci-
mens containing 7 and 75% fines, respectively.
Discussion
Seed et al. Model versus GMP Model
Although both the Seed et al. and the GMP models are relatively
simple, their implementation into a finite element model, for ex-
ample, of a soil system is very different. As mentioned previously,
Fig. 15. Plots of measured and predicted pore pressure ratios for 7%
fines: 共a兲 Seed et al. model; 共b兲 GMP model
Fig. 16. Plots of measured and predicted pore pressure ratios for
75% fines: 共a兲 Seed et al. model; 共b兲 GMP model
the use of the Seed et al. model requires that the earthquake
motions be converted to an equivalent number of uniform cycles
having amplitude defined by the CSR. Inherently, the overall
analysis is decoupled 共i.e., the number of equivalent cycles are/
were computed independent of the system response, to include
being independent of excess pore pressure generation兲. For some
applications, such as modeling the dissipation of excess pore
pressures using vertical drains 共Pestana et al. 1997兲, the a priori
simplification of the earthquake loading negates the need to run
numerous analyses using a suite of earthquake ground motions to
determine the range in responses. Additionally, in this case, the
decoupling of the analysis likely does not significantly impact the
accuracy of the computed results because the purpose of the ver-
tical drains is to rapidly dissipate the excess pore pressures. Con-
sequently, the computation of the number of equivalent cycles
without consideration of the influence of excess pore pressures is
justifiable. However, for dynamic site response analyses where
the generated excess pore pressures are expected to be significant
共i.e., ru 艌 0.5兲, decoupling of the analyses is not recommended if
the purpose of the analyses is to predict interlayer or surface
ground motions.
The use of the GMP model inherently requires a constitutive
model to define the stress-strain behavior of the soil, where the
properties of the soil are modified throughout the analysis in re-
sponse to the generation of excess pore pressures. Such analyses
are referred to as partially coupled or fully coupled depending on
the details of how the soil properties are modified in response to
the generation of the excess pore pressures 共Finn 1988; Byrne and
McIntyre 1994兲.
Because of the differences in the requirements to implement
the Seed et al. and the GMP models, a direct comparison of the
accuracy of the models cannot be readily made. However, in-
sights about the relative accuracies can be gained from comparing
the R2 values for the two models. In Fig. 17, differences in the R2
values for the two models 共i.e., RSeed et al. − RGMP兲 are plotted as
2 2

1496 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008

Downloaded 24 Jun 2009 to 128.173.204.142. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright

Fig. 17. Difference in R2 values for the Seed et al. and the GMP
models as a function of: 共a兲 relative density 共Dr兲; 共b兲 fines content
共FC兲; and 共c兲 cyclic stress ratio
functions of Dr, FC, and CSR. As may be observed from these
plots, the differences in the R2 values for the vast majority of the
specimens fell within ⫾0.2, implying the accuracy of the two
models is similar. However, Fig. 17 shows that there is a general
trend for difference in the R2 values to increase with increasing
Dr and FC, with no clear trend in the difference in the R2 values
as a function of CSR. From analyzing the data, it was determined
et al. − RGMP 艌 0.175 were associated
2 2
that the cases where RSeed
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1497
Downloaded 24 Jun 2009 to 128.173.204.142. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
with specimens that had a strong tendency to dilate when sheared,
characteristic of dense sand/silt 共i.e., Dr⬎ 85%兲 共Polito 1999兲.
Specifically, the large difference in the R2 values was due to
the inability of the GMP model to accurately model the pore
pressure response in these specimens, relative to the Seed et al.
model. For these soils, it may be better to use the more general
energy-based model proposed by Berrill and Davis 共1985兲 in lieu
of the GMP model. However, for sands, silty sands, and silts
having Dr艋 85%, the accuracies of the GMP and the Seed et al.
models are similar.
As discussed above, the ␣ and PEC correlations 关Eqs. 共8兲 and
共9兲, respectively兴 were developed from cyclic triaxial data. How-
ever, limited studies by the writers show that ␣ is relatively inde-
pendent of stress path, and, hence, the correlation given by Eq. 共8兲
is generally applicable to other stress paths, such as those occur-
ring in hollow cylinder and direct simple shear tests as well as
earthquake loading. Additionally, a laboratory study by Yanag-
isawa and Sugano 共1994兲 showed that the energy-pore pressure
relationship is relatively independent of stress path. However, the
writers caution that additional studies are required to definitively
confirm and/or qualify these conclusions.
Significance of Proposed ␣ Correlation for the Seed
et al. Model
As mentioned above, the GMP model inherently requires a con-
stitutive model to define the stress-strain behavior of the soil.
Consequently, the choice of constitutive model and the algorithm
used to update the soil parameters in response to excess pore
pressure generation will likely have as much, or more, influence
on the predicted pore pressure generation as PEC, thus, impeding
any sort of meaningful parametric study on the influence of PEC
on pore pressure generation. However, a parametric study is per-
formed analyzing the significance of the proposed ␣ correlation
on predicted pore pressure generation using the Seed et al. model,
in comparison to using ␣ = 0.7 as is commonly assumed.
The influence of CSR and FC on the predicted ru as a function
of N / Nl is shown in Fig. 18. As may be observed from this figure,
CSR has no influence on the predicted ru for FC⬍ 35%, which is
consistent with the observation made regarding Fig. 10. However,
for FC⬍ 35%, as the FC increases, the ru is predicted to increase
more rapidly. For FC艌 35%, FC has no significant influence on
the predicted ru, but CSR does; as the CSR increases, the ru is
predicted to increase more rapidly. Further, as may be observed
from Fig. 18, the ru curve corresponding to ␣ = 0.7 is a reasonable
lower bound for the predicted generated pore pressures, rather
than an average.
The influence of Dr on the predicted ru as a function of N / Nl
is shown in Fig. 19. As may be observed from this figure, for
FC⬍ 35%, as Dr increases, the ru is predicted to increase more
rapidly. However, for FC艌 35%, Dr has little influence on the
predicted ru. Again, the ru curve corresponding to ␣ = 0.7 is a
reasonable lower bound for the predicted generated pore pres-
sures, rather than an average.
Although Figs. 18 and 19 show the influence of ␣ on the
predicted ru, relative to the ru curve corresponding to ␣ = 0.7, the
real significance of the ␣ value used will depend on the specific
analysis being performed. For example, in modeling the dissipa-
tion of excess pore pressures using vertical drains 共Pestana et al.
1997兲, FC influences the predicted ru via the ␣ used in the Seed
et al. model, as well as influencing the rate at which the generated
pore pressures dissipate 共i.e., the rate of dissipation decreases as
FC increases兲. So, for FC⬍ 35%, as FC increases, the ru is pre-
Fig. 18. Predicted residual excess pore pressure ratios 共ru兲 using
the Seed et al. model for a soil subjected to a cyclic load having
CSR= 0.05, 0.15, and 0.30, and the soil having Dr= 50% and: 共a兲
FC= 0%; 共b兲 FC= 20%; and 共c兲 FC= 50%
dicted to increase more rapidly 共as shown in Fig. 18兲, coupled
with a slower rate of dissipation of the generated pore pressures.
Consequently, the significance of the ␣ used in an analysis needs
to be put into context of the specific analysis being performed.
Conclusions
It is often necessary to estimate cyclically induced excess pore
pressures in cohesionless soils. While several models have been
developed and calibrated for predicting excess pore pressures in
clean sands, little work has been done in this area for nonplastic,
silty soils. Two models 共i.e., Seed et al. and GMP models兲 were
evaluated for predicting residual excess pore pressure generation
in nonplastic, silty soils and both were found to be effective
means of making such analyses, with the GMP model only being
1498 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008
Downloaded 24 Jun 2009 to 128.173.204.142. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Fig. 19. Predicted residual excess pore pressure ratios 共ru兲 using the
Seed et al. model for a soil having Dr= 30, 50, and 70% and: 共a兲
CSR= 0.05 and FC= 0%; 共b兲 CSR= 0.15 and FC= 20%; and 共c兲
CSR= 0.30 and FC= 50%
applicable for soils having a Dr艋 85%. Using data from approxi-
mately 150 cyclic triaxial tests covering a wide range of nonplas-
tic silt contents and densities, the writers applied nonlinear mixed
effect regression techniques to develop correlations for estimating
the parameters required to calibrate the models. The results show
that the trends in both ␣ and PEC calibration parameters for the
Seed et al. and Green et al. pore pressure generation models,
respectively, differ significantly for soils containing less than and
greater than ⬃35% fines, consistent with the limiting fines con-
tent concept.
A parametric study performed by the writers using the new
calibration parameter correlation for the Seed et al. model shows
that the commonly used calibration parameter results in a lower
bound of the predicted generated pore pressures, rather than an
average. The significance of the proposed calibration parameter
correlations, as compared to the commonly calibration parameter,
depends on the specific analysis being performed. The proposed
calibration parameter correlation for the GMP model is the first
such correlation to be developed for this model.
A limited study by the writers and others show that these cor-
relations apply to all cyclic stress paths, but additional studies are
required to definitively confirm and/or qualify this conclusion.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported in part 共for the first writer兲 by a
Richardson Summer Research Grant from Valparaiso University.
This research was also supported in part 共second and third writ-
ers兲 by NSF Grant Nos. CMMI 0530378 and CMMI 0644580,
funded through the Geotechnical and GeoHazards Systems Pro-
gram. This support is gratefully acknowledged. Finally, the writ-
ers appreciate the review comments by Dr. Aaron Bradshaw and
Dr. Chris Baxter on an early draft of the manuscript.
References
Abrahamson, N. A., and Silva, W. J. 共1996兲. “Empirical ground motion
models.” Rep. to Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, N.Y.
American Society for Testing and Materials 共ASTM兲. 共2006a兲. “Standard
test methods for maximum index density and unit weight of soils
using a vibratory table.” ASTM D4253-06, West Conshohocken, Pa.
American Society for Testing and Materials 共ASTM兲. 共2006b兲. “Standard
test methods for minimum index density and unit weight of soils and
calculation of relative density.” ASTM D4254-00, West Consho-
hocken, Pa.
American Society for Testing and Materials 共ASTM兲. 共2007b兲. “Standard
test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using
standard effort.” ASTM D698-07, West Conshohocken, Pa.
American Society for Testing and Materials 共ASTM兲. 共2007b兲. “Standard
test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using
modified effort.” ASTM D1557-07, West Conshohocken, Pa.
Berrill, J. B., and Davis, R. O. 共1985兲. “Energy dissipation and seismic
liquefaction of sands: revised model.” Soils Found., 25共2兲, 106–118.
Booker, J. R., Rahman, M. S., and Seed, H. B. 共1976兲. “GADFLEA—
A computer program for the analysis of pore pressure generation
and dissipation during cyclic or earthquake loading.” Rep. No. EERC
76-24, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California
at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
Boulanger, R. W., and Idriss, I. M. 共2004兲. “Evaluating the potential for
liquefaction or cyclic failure of silts and clays.” Rep. No. UCD/CGM-
04/01, Center for Geotech. Modeling, Univ. of California at Davis,
Davis, Calif.
Boulanger, R. W., and Idriss, I. M. 共2006兲. “Liquefaction susceptibility
criteria for silts and clays.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132共11兲,
1413–1426.
Bray, J. D., et al. 共2004兲. “Subsurface characterization at ground failure
sites in Adapazari, Turkey.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130共7兲,
673–685.
Byrne, P. M., and McIntrye, J. 共1994兲. “Deformations in granular soils
due to cyclic loading.” Vertical and horizontal deformations of foun-
dation embankments, Geotechnical Special Publication 40, Vol. 2,
ASCE, New York, 1864–1896.
Chan, C. K. 共1985兲. Instruction manual, CKC E/P cyclic loading triaxial
system users’ manual, Soil Engineering Equipment Company, San
Francisco.
DeAlba, P., Chan, C. K., and Seed, H. B. 共1975兲. “Determination of soil
liquefaction characteristics by large-scale laboratory tests.” Rep. No.
EERC 75-14, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley, Calif.
Dobry, R., Ladd, R., Yokel, F., Chung, R., and Powell, D. 共1982兲. “Pre-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1499
Downloaded 24 Jun 2009 to 128.173.204.142. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
diction of pore water pressure buildup and liquefaction of sands dur-
ing earthquakes by the cyclic strain method.” NBS Building Science
Series 138, National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Dept. of Commerce.
Finn, W. D. L. 共1988兲. “Dynamic analysis in geotechnical engineering.”
Proc., Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. II: Recent Ad-
vances in Ground-Motion Evaluation, Geotechnical Special Publica-
tion 20, ASCE, New York, 523–591.
Green, R. A. 共2001兲. “Energy-based evaluation and remediation of lique-
fiable soils.” Ph.D. thesis, Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic In-
stitute and State Univ.
Green, R. A., Mitchell, J. K., and Polito, C. P. 共2000兲. “An energy-based
pore pressure generation model for cohesionless soils.” Proc., John
Booker Memorial Symp.—Developments in Theoretical Geomechan-
ics, D. W. Smith and J. P. Carter, eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, 383–390.
Green, R. A., Olson, S. M., and Polito, C. P. 共2006兲. “A comparative
study of the influence of fines on the liquefaction susceptibility of
sands: Field versus laboratory.” Proc., 8th National Conf. on Earth-
quake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oak-
land, Calif., Paper No. 8NCEE-001251.
Green, R. A., and Terri, G. A. 共2005兲. “Number of equivalent cycles
concept for liquefaction evaluations—Revisited.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Eng., 131共4兲, 477–488.
Hancock, J., and Bommer, J. J. 共2005兲. “The effective number of cycles
of earthquake ground motion.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 34共6兲,
637–664.
Ladd, R. S. 共1978兲. “Preparing test specimens using undercompaction.”
Geotech. Test. J., 1共1兲, 16–23.
Lambe, T. W., and Whitman, R. V. 共1969兲. Soil mechanics, Wiley, New
York.
Lee, K. L., and Albaisa, A. 共1974兲. “Earthquake induced settlements in
saturated sands.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 100共4兲, 387–406.
Lee, K. L., and Fitton, J. A. 共1968兲. “Factors affecting the cyclic loading
strength of soil.” Vibration effects of earthquakes on soils and foun-
dations, ASTM STP, 450, ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pa., 71–95.
Liu, A. H., Stewart, J. P., Abrahamson, N. A., and Moriwaki, Y. 共2001兲.
“Equivalent number of uniform stress cycles for soil liquefaction
analysis.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127共12兲, 1017–1026.
Martin, G. R., Finn, W. D. L., and Seed, H. B. 共1975兲. “Fundamentals of
liquefaction under cyclic loading.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 101共5兲,
423–438.
Martin, J. R., II, Olgun, C. G., Mitchell, J. K., and Durgunoglu, H. T.
共2004兲. “High modulus columns for liquefaction mitigation.” J. Geo-
tech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130共6兲, 561–571.
Peng, J., Lu, J., Law, K. H., and Elgamal, A. 共2004兲. “PARCYCLIC:
Finite-element modeling of earthquake liquefaction response on par-
allel computers.” Proc., 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering,
International Association for Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan,
Paper No. 361.
Pestana, J. M., Hunt, C. E., and Goughnour, R. R. 共1997兲. “FEQDrain: A
finite-element computer program for the analysis of the earthquake
generation and dissipation of pore water pressure in layered sand de-
posits with vertical drains.” Rep. No. UCB/EERC-97/15, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berke-
ley, Calif.
Pinheiro, J. C., and Bates, D. M. 共2000兲. Mixed-effects models in S and
S-PLUS, Statistics and computing series, J. Chambers, W. Eddy, W.
Hardle, S. Sheather, and L. Tierney, eds., Springer, New York.
Polito, C. P. 共1999兲. “The effects of non-plastic and plastic fines on the
liquefaction of sandy soils.” Ph.D. thesis, Civil Engineering, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., 具http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/
available/etd-122299-125729典.
Polito, C. P., and Martin, J. R. 共2001兲. “The effects of non-plastic fines on
the liquefaction resistance of sands.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
127共5兲, 408–415.
Rathje, E. M., Faraj, F., Russell, S., and Bray, J. D. 共2004兲. “Empirical
relationships for frequency content parameters of earthquake ground
 motions.” Earthquake Spectra, 20共1兲, 119–144.
Sanin, M. V., and Wijewickreme, D. 共2006兲. “Cyclic shear response of
channel-fill Fraser River delta silt.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 26共9兲,
854–869.
Scott, R. F. 共1963兲. Principles of soil mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Read-
ing, Mass.
Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M., and Arango, I. 共1983兲. “Evaluation of liquefac-
tion potential using field performance data.” J. Geotech. Engrg.,
109共3兲, 458–482.
Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M., Makidisi, F., and Banerjee, N. 共1975a兲. “Rep-
resentation of irregular stress time histories by equivalent uniform
stress series in liquefaction analyses.” Rep. No. EERC 75-29, Univ. of
California, Berkeley.
Seed, H. B., Martin, P. P., and Lysmer, J. 共1975b兲. “The generation and
dissipation of pore water pressures during soil liquefaction.” Rep. No.
EERC 75-26, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Silver, M. L. 共1977兲. “Laboratory triaxial testing procedures to determine
the cyclic strength of soils.” NUREG-0031, National Technical Infor-
mation Service, Springfield, Va.
1500 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008
View publication stats Downloaded 24 Jun 2009 to 128.173.204.142. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Sun, J., and Yuan, X. 共2006兲. “A simplified formula for estimating real-
time pore water pressure of anisotropically consolidated saturated
sands under random earthquake loads” Proc., GeoShanghai, Geotech-
nical Special Publication No. 150, ASCE/GEO Institute, Reston, Va.,
444–451.
Wijewickreme, D., Sanin, M. V., and Greenaway, G. R. 共2005兲. “Cyclic
shear response of fine-grained mine tailings.” Can. Geotech. J., 42共5兲,
1408–1421.
Yanagisawa, E., and Sugano, T. 共1994兲. “Undrained shear behaviors of
sand in view of shear work.” Proc., 13th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering 共Special Volume on Performance of
Ground and Soil Structures during Earthquakes兲, Balkema, Rotter-
dam, The Netherlands, 155–158.
Youd, T. L., et al. 共2001兲. “Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary
report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on
evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenvi-
ron. Eng., 127共10兲, 817–833.