Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 895–911

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Bounding surface plasticity model for the seismic liquefaction

analysis of geostructures
Konstantinos I. Andrianopoulos a,, Achilleas G. Papadimitriou b, George D. Bouckovalas a
a
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Thessaly, Greece

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: This paper presents the constitutive relations and the simulative potential of a new plasticity model
Received 16 October 2009 developed mainly for the seismic liquefaction analysis of geostructures. The model incorporates the
Received in revised form framework of critical state soil mechanics, while it relies on bounding surface plasticity with a vanished
30 March 2010
elastic region to simulate the non-linear soil response. Key constitutive ingredients of the new model
Accepted 1 April 2010
are: (a) the inter-dependence of the critical state, the bounding and the dilatancy (open cone) surfaces
on the basis of the state parameter c, (b) a (Ramberg–Osgood type) non-linear hysteretic formulation
for the ‘‘elastic’’ strain rate, (c) a discontinuously relocatable stress projection center related to the
‘‘last’’ load reversal point, which is used for mapping the current stress point on model surfaces and as a
reference point for introducing non-linearity in the ‘‘elastic’’ strain rate and finally (d) an empirical
index of the directional effect of sand fabric evolution during shearing, which scales the plastic
modulus. In addition, the paper outlines the calibration procedure for the model constants, and exhibits
its accuracy on the basis of a large number of laboratory element tests on Nevada sand. More
importantly, the paper explores the potential of the new model by presenting simulations of the
VELACS centrifuge tests of Models No 1 and 12, which refer to the free-field liquefaction response of
Nevada sand and the seismic response of a rigid foundation on the same sand, respectively. These
simulations show that the new model can be used successfully for the analysis of widely different
boundary value problems involving earthquake soil liquefaction, with the same set of model constants
calibrated on the basis of laboratory element tests.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction go beyond elastoplasticity, like the hypoplasticity (e.g. [24]) and

Over the years, a number of constitutive models have been
developed to simulate the cyclic loading of non-cohesive soils,
with emphasis on cyclic mobility and/or flow liquefaction, which
may be divided into several categories depending on their
fundamental characteristics, such as multi-surface models (e.g.
[1–4]), two-surface models (e.g. [5–10]), bounding surface models
(e.g. [11–14]) and generalized plasticity models (e.g. [15–18]).
Furthermore, there are models that build on classical elastoplas-
ticity by complementing it with key constitutive concepts, like the
multi-laminate concept (e.g. [19]), an endochronic densification
law (e.g. [20]), the middle surface concept (e.g. [21]), the
disturbed state concept (e.g. [22]) and the multiple-mechanism
concept (e.g. [23]). In addition to the above, there are models that
 Correspondence to: Mourgkanas 6, Maroussi, 15126 Athens, Greece.
Tel.: +30 210 8069604; fax: + 30 210 6128460.
E-mail addresses: kandrian@tee.gr (K.I. Andrianopoulos), apapad@civ.uth.gr
(A.G. Papadimitriou), gbouck@central.ntua.gr (G.D. Bouckovalas).
hyperplasticity models (e.g. [25]).
Although pertinent models present the foregoing differences in
their fundamental characteristics, the most recent ones usually share
constitutive ingredients that have offered improved simulations.
Specifically, since the mechanical response of sand is characterized by
infinite normal consolidation (NC-) lines pending on the initial
conditions of void ratio and confining pressure, the critical state
constitutive models that retained the unique NCL idealization from
clay response had difficulties in producing quantitatively accurate
simulations for all initial conditions. Hence, the introduction of the
state parameter c of Been and Jefferies [26] in constitutive equations,
either implicitly (by Jefferies [27] for monotonic loading) or explicitly
(by Manzari and Dafalias [6] for both monotonic and cyclic response),
allowed the use of a single set of model constants for successful
simulations for any initial void ratio or confining pressure. This
concept has been implemented in many constitutive models there-
after, regardless of their fundamental characteristics (e.g. the
bounding surface model of Li et al. [13], the two-surface models of
Papadimitriou and Bouckovalas [9], Dafalias and Manzari [28] and the
generalized plasticity model of Ling and Yang [18]).

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.04.001
896 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 895–911
In addition, various functions of integrals of strain histories
during the shearing phase have appeared in the literature as
scalar multipliers of the plastic modulus (e.g. in the generalized
plasticity model of Pastor et al. [15]). Such a plastic modulus
multiplier was first explicitly related to evolving sand fabric by
Papadimitriou [29] and Papadimitriou et al. [30] in their
integrated approach to account, not only for the densifying effect
related to contractive phases of shearing, but also for the opposite
effects related to dilation. In parallel, focusing merely on sand
fabric evolution due to the dilation, Dafalias and Manzari [31]
proposed a scalar multiplier of the dilatancy aiming primarily on
accurately simulating the cyclic mobility phase of shearing. This
constitutive concept related to evolving sand fabric has continued
to appear in the literature, in different forms of scalar multipliers
of either the plastic modulus (e.g. in generalized plasticity models
[17,18], in two-surface models [8,9]), or of the dilatancy (e.g. in
multi-surface models [3,4], in two-surface models [28]), or as an
endochronic densification law [20].
Given the foregoing recent advances, most pertinent constitu-
tive models have been able to simulate qualitatively the
hysteretic cyclic response of sands in small to medium cyclic
shear strains (see thresholds of cyclic shear strain amplitudes in
[32]) and have demonstrated the potential to reproduce the
excess pore pressure buildup in undrained loading under large
cyclic shear strains, as well as the well-known ‘‘butterfly’’ shaped
loops in the effective stress path that are related to cyclic
mobility. Nevertheless, to our knowledge, quantitative accuracy
of the response for all cyclic strain levels with the same set of
values of model constants has only been demonstrated by
Papadimitriou et al. [8] and Papadimitriou and Bouckovalas [9],
who adopted the constitutive two-surface model platform of
Manzari and Dafalias [6], and introduced two key constitutive
elements: (a) a Ramberg–Osgood type non-linear hysteretic
formulation of the ‘‘elastic’’ moduli, that governs shear modulus
degradation and hysteretic damping increase for small to medium
cyclic shear strains, and (b) a scalar multiplier of the plastic
modulus, that builds on the proposals of [29,30] and [31]
mentioned above, and governs the response at medium to large
cyclic shear strains.
The new model presented herein is an improvement of the
foregoing (antecedent) two-surface model of Papadimitriou et al.
[8] and Papadimitriou and Bouckovalas [9]. As such, it retains the
constitutive merits described above, while it introduces certain
alterations that enhance its accuracy, but mainly facilitate its
implementation to numerical codes. Namely, the new model
reduces the ‘‘small’’ conical yield surface to a straight line
emanating from the stress origin (vanished elastic region: a
concept first proposed by Dafalias [33], Dafalias and Popov [34]
for metals), and thus reduces its numerical complexity. In turn,
this change dictates revision of key constitutive ingredients, i.e.
the definition of the loading direction and the mapping rule, since
these were based on a yield surface that no longer exists, as well
as a revision of the interpolation rule.
In particular, this paper presents the constitutive relations of
the new model, outlines the calibration procedure and includes a
comparison of simulations to data from the same large number of
element tests on Nevada sand (capturing the full behavioral
pattern of cyclic loading) that were also used for the verification
of the antecedent model. Furthermore, unlike the antecedent
model whose accuracy was ascertained only at the element test
level, the accuracy of the new model is explored for two (2)
widely different boundary value problems involving earthquake-
induced liquefaction, namely the VELACS centrifuge tests of
Models No 1 and 12, which refer to the free-field response of
liquefied Nevada sand and the seismic response of a rigid
foundation on the same sand, respectively. The numerical
simulations for these two boundary value problems were
obtained after successful implementation of the new model to
the explicit finite difference code FLAC [35], as detailed in
Andrianopoulos [36] and Andrianopoulos et al. [37,38].
In the following, the constitutive equations of the new model
are always presented with reference to the antecedent model, so
that the reader can clearly identify the similarities and differ-
entiations between the two models. In terms of notation, tensors
are written in bold face characters so that they can be easily
distinguished from scalars, while all presented stress quantities
are effective. Symbol ‘‘:’’ denotes the double inner product of two
second-order tensors.
2. Constitutive equations
2.1. Model platform
As mentioned above, the proposed model is an improvement
of the antecedent two-surface model of Papadimitriou et al. [8]
and Papadimitriou and Bouckovalas [9], which was in turn based
on the model of Manzari and Dafalias [6]. Therefore, its basic
equations need not be presented in full detail and are therefore
only outlined in Table 1. In this manner, the paper focuses on the
alterations and enhancements presented in paragraphs 2.2
through 2.6.
In particular, the antecedent model had adopted a four (open-
cone) surface formulation (yield, critical state, bounding, dila-
tancy) and the inter-dependency of the last three surfaces on the
basis of the state parameter c, from Manzari and Dafalias [6]. In
the new model, the ‘‘small’’ conical, purely kinematically hard-
ening, yield surface has been reduced to a straight line, and
therefore appears as a point on the p-plane of the deviatoric stress
ratio r space instead of a constant radius circle. This choice was
not made to increase its predictive accuracy (the elastic region
was ‘‘small’’ in the antecedent model), but to reduce the
numerical problems created by its existence during its imple-
mentation to FLAC. More specifically, in this way, it was made
possible to satisfactorily overcome a number of stability related
problems that significantly increase the required computational
effort with the explicit stress integration scheme (Sloan [39],
Sloan et al. [40]) used, namely (a) the estimation of a stress path
crossing point of the yield surface (when going from an elastic to a
plastic state), and (b) the drift correction resulting from the weak
enforcement of the consistency condition, and the subsequent
necessary sub-stepping in the stress integration scheme. The need
for adopting a zero elastic range was further underlined by the
mixed discretization algorithm [41] adopted in FLAC in order to
overcome the problem of hourglassing, which may occur with
constant-strain finite difference quadrilaterals. In more detail,
with the foregoing computer code, the continuum is divided into a
finite difference mesh composed of quadrilateral elements (or
‘‘zones’’ in FLAC terminology). Each element is automatically
subdivided into two overlaid sets of constant-strain triangular
sub-zones, and stress integration is performed separately for each
of the four sub-zones of the element. However, the isotropic
effective stress (p) and strain components (ep) are taken to be
uniform over the whole quadrilateral element and equal to their
average value over the four triangular sub-zones, while the
deviatoric components of stress s and strain e are treated
separately for each triangular sub-zone. This averaging procedure
of p and ep is inherent in FLAC and is performed after the end of
each applied strain increment e_ , leading this way to a significant
drift error and thus making the enforcement of the consistency
condition at each solution step even more cumbersome numeri-
cally. The overall computational cost becomes disproportionally
 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 895–911 897

Table 1
Equations of constitutive model platform.

Description Form of equation Constants References/notes

Deviatoric stress ratio on bounding surface in triaxial Mcb ¼ Mcc þ kbc /cS ð1Þ Mcc ,kbc Manzari and Dafalias [6], with o 4
compression, as a function of the state parameter c being Macauley brackets, where
(Been and Jefferies [26]) o c 4 ¼0.5(|c|+ c)
Deviatoric stress ratio on dilatancy surface in triaxial Mcd ¼ Mcc þ kdc c ð2Þ kdc Manzari and Dafalias [6]
compression
Critical State Line location in [e, p] – definition of c c ¼ eecs ¼ eGcs þ l lnðpÞ ð3Þ Gcs, l Manzari and Dafalias [6]

c,b,d
Multiaxial generalization of model surfaces on the basis My ¼ gðy,cÞMcc,b,d ð4Þ c ¼ Mec =Mcc
of the Lode angle y and c
 
Shape of model surfaces on the p-plane of the 4c ð1 þ cÞ þ ð1cÞcosð3yÞ Papadimitriou and Bouckovalas [9]
gðy,cÞ ¼  ð5Þ
deviatoric stress ratio space ð1þ cÞð1cÞcosð3yÞ 2

pffiffiffi
Estimation of Lode angle y, on the basis of the conjugate 3 ðrbi : rbi : rbi Þ Li [14]
b cosð3yÞ ¼ 3=2 ð6Þ
(image) deviatoric stress ratio tensor ri on the 2
ð0:5ðrbi : rbi Þ
bounding surface
!  
‘‘Elastic’’ strain rate estimation, on the basis of the e_ ep s_ p_ Kt, Gt are the bulk and shear ‘‘elastic’’
e_ e ¼ e_ e þ I¼ þ I ð7Þ
effective stress increment r_ ¼ s_ þ pI
_ 3 2Gt Kt moduli (see 2.4)

!
Plastic strain rate e_ pp L (see Eq. (9)), R (see Eq. (11))
e_ p ¼ e_ p þ I ¼ /LSR ð8Þ
3

Loading index, in terms of the effective stress r_ L:r_ Kp is the plastic modulus (see 2.5)
L¼ ð9Þ
increment Kp

Loading direction n:r n is a unit deviatoric stress ratio

L ¼ n I ð10Þ
3 tensor (see 2.2)

Plastic strain rate direction (non-associated flow rule) D D is the dilatancy function (see
R ¼ nþ I ð11Þ
3 section 2.3)

Estimation of effective stress r_ increment, on the basis r_ ¼ 2Gt e_ þ Kt e_ p I/LSð2Gt n þ Kt DIÞ ð12Þ On the basis of Eqs. (7)–(8) and (11)
of the applied strain increment e_ ¼ e_ þ ðe_ p =3ÞI
Loading index, in terms of the applied strain increment L ¼ 2Gt n:eðn _ : rÞKt e_ p The sign of L is used for definition of
ð13Þ
Kp þ 2Gt ðn : rÞKt D load reversal (see 2.6)

large given the fact that FLAC is an explicit code and thus
necessarily uses small time steps irrespective of the constitutive
model at hand. Based on everything mentioned above it becomes
obvious, that the choice of a vanished elastic region is practically a
‘‘Gordian knot’’ type of solution of all aforementioned numerical
problems, without loss of simulative accuracy.
Hence, the proposed model has three open cone-type surfaces
with apex at the origin of stress space: (i) the critical state surface
at which deviatoric deformation develops for constant stresses
and no volume change (constant void ratio e), (ii) the bounding
surface which locates the peak deviatoric stress ratio states and
(iii) the dilatancy surface which dictates the sign of the plastic
volumetric strain increment during loading. It is noted that when
the stress point is within the dilatancy surface the sand behavior
is contractive, while the opposite occurs outside the dilatancy
surface, and hence this surface is practically the stress space
generalization of the phase transformation line of Ishihara et al.
[42]. Furthermore, it should be clarified that the proposed and the
antecedent models adopt the concept of Manzari and Dafalias [6]
who allowed the stress point to marginally cross the bounding
surface in order to simulate strain softening, and in this sense, the
term ‘bounding’ surface for the proposed model is used in the
broader sense. The shapes of these model surfaces for triaxial
compression are uniquely defined by the deviatoric stress ratios
Mcc , Mcb and Mcd (collectively Mcc,b,d ), which are interrelated via the
state parameter c, via Eqs. (1) through (3) in Table 1. Alternatives
to the forms, but not to the concepts, of these equations have been
proposed in the literature. For example, smoother exponential
functions of c for Mcb and Mcd can be used in Eqs. (1)–(2), as per
[28] and [43], or more elaborate critical state line equations in Eq.
(3), like the 3-constant equation of [13]. However, the proposed
model retains the original form of the equations for simplicity and
consistency with the antecedent model.
The multiaxial generalization of these surfaces is shown
graphically in Fig. 1, that presents their shape in the p-plane
(perpendicular to the hydrostatic p axis) of the deviatoric stress-
ratio r space, where r ¼s/p, with s¼ r  pI being the deviatoric
stress tensor (r and I are the effective stress and the identity
second-order tensors). As shown in this figure, the multiaxial
generalization is based on a Lode angle y-dependency of all
surfaces, expressed via Eqs. (4) and (5), where Myc,b,d define the
apertures of the three surfaces, respectively, along radii related to
Lode angle y (see Fig. 1), on the basis of their respective apertures
for triaxial compression Mcc,b,d , and model constant c ¼ Mec =Mcc
( o1). As depicted in Fig. 1, the Lode angle y is defined in terms of
the conjugate (image) deviatoric stress ratio tensor rbi on the
bounding surface according to Eq. (6), whose estimation
procedure (mapping rule) will be fully explained in paragraph 2.2.
The general form of constitutive equations is that of classical
elasto-plasticity, i.e. there is a decomposition of the strain rate e_
into an elastic e_ e and a plastic e_ p component. Considering that the
former strain rate is not fully reversible, and that there is no
elastic region in this model, the term ‘‘elastic’’ is presented in
quotes throughout the paper. In particular, the ‘‘elastic’’ and
plastic strain rates are estimated as per Eqs. (7) and (8) in Table 1,
which also includes all equations that formulate the constitutive
model platform (Eq. (9) through (13)). What remains to be defined
are the forms given to the unit deviatoric stress ratio n (on the
898 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 895–911
basis of the mapping rule, see Section 2.2), the dilatancy function
D (on the basis of the flow rule, see Section 2.3), the non-linear
hysteretic ‘‘elastic’’ moduli Kt and Gt (see Section 2.4), the plastic
modulus Kp (on the basis of the interpolation rule, see Section 2.5)
and the triggering mechanism of load reversal (see Section 2.6).
2.2. Mapping rule
The existence of a ‘‘small’’ conical, purely kinematically
hardening yield surface in the antecedent model provided the
means for defining the loading direction L as the gradient to the
yield surface. Given that the yield surface had a circular shape in
the p-plane of the deviatoric stress ratio r space in that model (of
radius m, as proposed by Manzari and Dafalias [6]), the deviatoric
part of the loading direction L, i.e. n in Eq. (10), was defined along
the r–a direction, where a was the kinematically hardening
deviatoric back-stress ratio that located the center of the yield
surface in the foregoing p-plane (Fig. 2a). The corresponding
direction of n was then used for defining the deviatoric part of the
plastic strain rate direction R (Eq. (11)) and also for mapping the
location the current stress point on model surfaces. Strictly
speaking, the bounding, critical and dilatancy surfaces in the two-
surface model were defined in terms of deviatoric back-stress
ratios ab,i, ac,i and ad,i, respectively, which mapped the location of
a and not of r (see Fig. 2a). Nevertheless, since r¼ a + mn, the
corresponding conjugate (image) deviatoric stress ratio points rb,i,
Fig. 1. Model surfaces and adopted mapping rule in the p-plane of the deviatoric
stress ratio space, based on a relocatable projection center (based on [12]).
Fig. 2. Model surfaces and various alternative mapping rules in the p-plane of the deviatoric stress ratio space: (a) based on the yield surface location [6,9], (b) based on the
elastic prediction of deviatoric stress ratio rate, (c) radial, but taking into account the elastic prediction of deviatoric stress ratio rate.
rc,i and rd,i were always estimated by adding the quantity mn to
the deviatoric back-stress ratios abi, aci and adi, respectively.
Based on the above, the importance of n was crucial for the
whole constitutive platform. In addition, basing its estimation on
the gradient of the yield surface L provided for stability, since the n
was not dependent on the currently applied loading increment. On
the contrary, the n was made to depend on the recent loading
history, as this is expressed via the location of the yield surface a
relative to the stress point r. Moreover, adopting a circular shape
for the yield surface in the p-plane retained the definition of L
(and of n) simple, as opposed to adopting a more realistic yield
surface shape with third stress invariant dependency (e.g. as in the
two-surface model of [7]) having a small overall gain in accuracy.
Reducing the ‘‘small’’ conical, purely kinematically hardening
yield surface to a straight line originating from the stress origin
created the need for explicitly defining the n direction and also for
introducing a new mapping rule of the current deviatoric stress
ratio r on the model surfaces. Furthermore, in order to maintain
the good performance of the antecedent two-surface model in its
zero-elastic range variant presented herein, the two constitutive
attributes would have to remain interrelated. In addition, the
definition of the unit-deviatoric loading direction n should remain
stable, dependent on recent loading history and simple, as in the
two-surface model.
Thus, it was first chosen to base the definition of n on the
location of the conjugate (image) deviatoric stress ratio point on
the bounding surface rbi, and define the n direction as
r bi
n ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð14Þ
r bi : r bi
In the sequel, attempting to find an appropriate mapping rule,
Andrianopoulos et al. [44] studied various schemes (Figs. 1,
2b, 2c) that could potentially be used for cyclic loading conditions,
and compared its predictions with those of a reference two-
surface model similar to [6] and whose mapping rule is depicted
in Fig. 2a. Based on their conclusions, locating rbi by using the
e
elastic prediction of the deviatoric stress ratio rate r_ (Fig. 2b) is
simple and reasonable, but fails in the stability criterion, since
small loading perturbations (common in numerical analyses) will
continuously relocate the rbi. Alternatively, a mapping rule was
considered (Fig. 2c) that is radial on the p-plane of the deviatoric
stress ratio space and, hence the rbi is collinear with r or –r,
depending on whether the r : r_ e scalar product is positive
(loading) or negative (reverse loading), respectively. This rule is
simple, introduces the useful concept of reversal of loading, which
 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 895–911
discontinuously relocates the rbi point, nevertheless it yields
non-realistic predictions for non-proportional loadings, since the
rbi continuously fails to be in the direction of loading, with the
exception of proportional paths like the triaxial, for which it yields
identical results with the two-surface formulation.
Building on the foregoing study, the proposed model finally
adopts the mapping rule of Fig. 1 that was first proposed by Wang
et al. [12], but with respect to the memory loading surface and not
the bounding surface related to the peak stress ratios as performed
here. According to this rule, the estimation of rbi presupposes the
definition of a relocatable projection centre rref defined as the
deviatoric stress-ratio state where the last load reversal took place
(see Section 2.6 for triggering of load reversal). Once the reference
state rref has been defined, the conjugate (image) point on the
bounding surface rbi is found as the crossing point of the bounding
surface and the line originating from r and projecting along the (r–
rref) direction. During the implementation of this model in FLAC, the
Pegasus procedure of Dowel and Jarratt [45] was adopted for
locating rbi, a procedure that was also used by Sloan et al. [40] to
locate the stress path-yield surface intersection point. This proce-
dure is unconditionally convergent in four or five iterations (for an
error tolerance of 10  5 in terms of r values), does not require the use
of derivatives and is detailed in Andrianopoulos et al. [37].
This mapping rule is obviously simple, stable (since small
perturbations of the loading do not affect the rbi location, unless
they trigger the load reversal criterion) and depends on the recent
loading history (as this is portrayed by the reference state rref).
Hence, it retains the fundamental characteristics of the mapping
rule of the two-surface model, with the drawback of having a
discontinuously relocatable projection centre rref, as opposed to a
kinematically hardening deviatoric back-stress ratio a.
Having defined rbi (and thus n, as per Eq. (14)) enables the
depiction of rci and rdi, i.e. the conjugate (image) point on the
critical state and the dilatancy surfaces, respectively, as the points
on these surfaces that corresponds to the same Lode angle y (see
Eq. (6) and Fig. 1). Analytically, the conjugate (image) points on
the three surfaces (collectively rc.b,d
i ) are given by
rffiffiffi ! 1
2 c,b,d
rc,b,d
i ¼ M n ð15Þ
3 y
The scalar distances db and dd (collectively db,d), of the current
state of stress from the bounding and the dilatancy surfaces
respectively, are defined on the p-plane of the deviatoric stress-
ratio space and along the direction of n (see Fig. 1), thereby
retaining the philosophy of the two-surface model. In particular,
these distances are thus estimated as
db,d ¼ ðrb,d
i rÞ : n ð16Þ
Note that distances db,d may become positive or negative,
depending on whether r is within or outside the respective
surface. Besides the foregoing distances, of interest for the
estimation of the plastic modulus and the dilatancy (see Sections
2.5 and 2.3) are also dbmax and ddmax (collectively db,d
max ), which
correspond to the ever-current maximum possible values of db,d
along the direction of n, and are given by
rffiffiffi
2 b,d
db,d
max ¼ ðM þ Myb,d
þp
Þ ð17Þ
3 y
Note that the definitions of dbmax and ddmax above follow the
proposals of Manzari and Dafalias [6] and Dafalias et al. [46],
respectively.
2.3. Flow rule
With respect to the flow rule of the new model, Eq. (11) shows
that the component of the plastic strain rate direction R on the
899
p-plane of the deviatoric stress ratio space is equal to n. Therefore,
the deviatoric component of R is not related to the direction of the
gradient to the bounding surface at the location of the conjugate
(image) point rbi, but merely to the direction of the rbi point itself
(Eq. (14), Fig. 1). As shown by Dafalias and Manzari [28], this
simplification leads to less accurate predictions for monotonic
loading. Nevertheless this form of R is hereby considered accurate
enough for simulations of cyclic loading. Furthermore, by
comparing Eqs. (10) and (11) it is deduced that the new model
adopts a non-associative flow rule, since the dilatancy function D
is not related to the volumetric parameter n:r of the L. This
because the dilatancy function D is defined explicitly as [28]
" sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi#
d /dd S
D ¼ Ao d 2 ð18Þ
ddmax
Note that the D in the antecedent model [9] did not include the
term in brackets, which was added by Dafalias et al. [28] for better
simulations at high stress ratios. Furthermore, note that the sign
of D is solely dependent on the sign of dd, thus ensuring negative
plastic volumetric strain rates e_ pp o0 for negative values of dd, i.e.
when the stress point is outside the dilatancy surface.
2.4. Non-linear hysteretic ‘‘elastic’’ moduli
Based on what was mentioned in the introduction and Section
2.1, the ‘‘elastic’’ strain rate of the proposed model is estimated on
the basis of non-linear hysteretic moduli. In particular, following
isotropic elasticity, the tangential ‘‘elastic’’ bulk modulus Kt is
related to the tangential ‘‘elastic’’ shear modulus Gt via a constant
elastic Poisson’s ratio n (a model constant). In turn, based on [9],
the non-linear hysteretic form of Gt is given the following
generalized Ramberg–Osgood type of relation
 rffiffiffiffiffi 
Gmax Bpa p 1
Gt ¼ ¼ 2
ð19Þ
T 0:3 þ 0:7e pa T

0 ffi1
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1=2ðrr ref Þ:ðrr ref ÞA
T ¼ 1þ 1 @   ð20Þ
a1 Gref
a max
1 g
pref 1
where B, a1, g1 are model constants, pa ¼98.1 kPa is the atmo-
spheric pressure, T is the scalar variable which introduces
tangential shear modulus degradation (see illustration in Fig. 3),
while pref and Gref
max correspond to the values of p and Gmax (using
Eq. (19) for T¼1) at the last load reversal state (where r ¼rref).
Eqs. (19) and (20) ensure that the ever-current value Gt is
assumed to decrease smoothly from its maximum value Gmax, as a
function of the distance of the current state (tensor r) from the
last load reversal (rref) on the p-plane of the deviatoric stress-ratio
space (see Fig. 1). Compared to the form of these equations in [9],
Eq. (19) has no longer a maximum value for T equal to (2/a1  1), a
fact leading to a smoother transition in the cyclic response from
medium to large cyclic shear strains (see Fig. 3, for comparison
with the formulation in [9]). In addition, for monotonic loading
the shear modulus degradation introduced by T is not required,
and therefore Gt requires the calibration only of B (see details in
Appendix). Therefore, the proposed model requires 2 less
constants for use in monotonic loading.
It needs to be stressed that the very large majority of elasto-
plastic models aiming at cyclic loading of sands in the literature
depend on the plastic strain rate for modeling soil-nonlinearity
and usually use hypoelastic moduli for the elastic strain rate
component. Such an option works seemingly well for models
aiming at flow liquefaction and/or cyclic mobility, since the
pertinent response is characterized by large cyclic shear strains
for which the elastic component is a small percentage of the total
900 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 895–911
Fig. 3. Exemplary pure shear stress–strain relation [t–g] according to the
proposed Ramberg–Osgood type shear formulation. Comparison with formulation
in Papadimitriou and Bouckovalas [9].
strain. Nevertheless, if one uses such models for predicting the
response under smaller cyclic shear strains amplitudes (say
smaller than 0.05%), he may find that the experimentally
measured soil non-linearity is under-predicted. An example of
such under-prediction is demonstrated by Papadimitriou and
Bouckovalas [9].
To this extent, it is also worth mentioning that, since the
foregoing publication, pertinent constitutive models have ap-
peared in the literature with non-linear hysteretic forms of the
‘‘elastic’’ moduli that are directly based, or merely inspired by the
foregoing proposal. For instance, Loukidis and Salgado [10]
incorporate the Ramberg–Osgood type formulation unaltered in
their two-surface plasticity model, while Lopez-Querol and
Blazquez [20] use it in a simplified manner in their endochronic
liquefaction model.
2.5. Plastic modulus
The basis of the constitutive response for large cyclic shear
strains is the form given to the plastic modulus Kp (Eqs. (9) and
(13)) and the flow rule (Eqs. (11)–(13)). Specifically, the plastic
modulus Kp is given as [9]
Kp ¼ phb hf db ð21Þ
where hb and hf are dimensionless positive functions to be defined
in the sequel, while the sign of distance db from the bounding
surface (Eq. (16)) controls the sign of Kp. Specifically, when db is
negative, the Kp becomes negative too, but the loading index L
remains positive thus simulating post-peak shear strain softening
response of dilative soils (with respect to the deviatoric stress
ratio and not deviatoric stress), an attribute of the formulation
originating from Manzari and Dafalias [6]. Note that allowing the
stress state to go outside the bounding surface is an original
constitutive attribute, which facilitates the simulation of strain
softening, as opposed to other relatively more complicated efforts
in the literature (e.g. via the disturbed state concept of Park and
Desai [22]).
Function hb introduces the highly non-linear interpolation rule
of the new model according to
jdb j3
hb ¼ ho ð22Þ
odbmax jdb j 4
with ho being a model constant, and distances db and dbmax being
estimated by Eqs. (16) and (17), respectively. The foregoing
equation induces a much more non-linear interpolation rule (due
to the exponent 3 in the nominator) in comparison to the
antecedent model [9], a fact that has proved necessary after
introducing the vanished elastic region (e.g. following load
reversal far from failure, a vanished elastic region model without
the exponent 3 would give much larger plastic strains than what
data show and what a two-surface model, like [9], would give due
to the existence of the ‘‘small’’ elastic region).
Function hf is the second key constitutive ingredient providing
enhanced accuracy for the simulation of cyclic response that was
first proposed, in a form similar to the current one, by
Papadimitriou and Bouckovalas [9]. Specifically, this function acts
as an empirical macroscopic indicator of the effect of sand fabric
evolution during shearing on the magnitude of the plastic strain
rate. In more detail, the original proposal [29,30,8] took into
account experimental observations that loading within the
dilatancy surface re-arranged sand particle contacts rendering
the material ‘‘stiffer’’ (e.g. [47]), while loading in dilation (outside
the dilatancy surface) led to much ‘‘softer’’ response upon load
reversal (e.g. [42]). Hence, the hf composed of a non-directional
ratio of integrals of the plastic volumetric strain rate, namely of
the whole loading history in the numerator (simulating the
‘‘stiffening’’ response) and of the history of loading in dilation
between successive load reversals in the denominator (depicting
the foregoing ‘‘softening’’ response). In parallel, following micro-
mechanical observations of sand particle contact normal orienta-
tion distribution (e.g. [48]), Dafalias and Manzari [31,28] proposed
a purely deviatoric fabric-dilatancy tensor that evolves only upon
dilative phases of loading. This fabric-dilatancy tensor was used to
define a scalar multiplier of the dilatancy function D that leads to
enhanced contractive response upon load reversal following
dilation. Finally, Papadimitriou and Bouckovalas [9] re-formulated
their non-directional function hf to account for the directivity of
sand fabric evolution during dilation [31,28], by introducing an
evolving fabric-dilatancy tensor F ¼f + (fp/3)I, where f is the
deviatoric component of F and fp ¼trace(F) ¼F:I, which enters
the form of hf as
1 þ /F : IS2 1 þ/fp S2
hf ¼ ¼ ð23Þ
1þ /F : nS 1 þ /f : nS
with components fp and f having independent rates of evolution
f_ p ¼ Ne_ pp ð24Þ
f_ ¼ N oe_ pp 4½Fm n þf ð25Þ
with Eq. (25) being adopted from [31,28]. Note that the term
‘‘fabric-dilatancy’’ used above for tensor F describes the fact it
evolves as a function of the (plastic) volumetric strain rate
(Eqs. (24) and (25)) and that it is not actually a true fabric tensor,
since it does not quantify any physically measurable property
of the sand fabric. Positive quantity Fm in Eq. (25) corresponds to
the ever-current maximum norm allowed for tensor f, while N
corresponds to the intensity of sand fabric evolution for both
the volumetric and the deviatoric components in Eqs. (24) and
(25), respectively. In particular, the foregoing quantities are
given by
Fm ¼ 4maxjfp j2 ð26Þ
 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 895–911
 
pa
N ¼ No /co S
s1o
where No is a model constant, while co and s1o correspond to the
values of the state parameter and the major principal stress at the
beginning of cyclic loading (e.g. at the end of consolidation), both
quantities being used for appropriately scaling the intensity N of
sand fabric evolution according to the prevailing initial condi-
tions. Note that based on Eq. (24), scalar fp may become negative
(e.g. after a lengthy dilative phase) and this is the reason for
taking the maximum of |fp| for quantifying the norm of f in Eq.
(26). Furthermore, note that due to the exponent 2 in Eq. (26), the
maximum value of the denominator of hf becomes of the same
order of magnitude as the maximum value ever retained by its
numerator. Based on Eq. (27) parameter N becomes non-zero only
for initially dilative states (co o0), implying that the effect of sand
fabric evolution needs to be simulated for such states only. In
extension, the more dilative the initial state, the more important
should the effect of sand fabric evolution be, and therefore N
increases with o–co 4. Finally, the addition of the s1o term in
Eq. (27), instead of a similar po term as in [8], depicts the
additional effect of initial stress anisotropy on the intensity of
sand fabric evolution.
Compared to the form of Eqs. (23)–(27) in Papadimitriou and
Bouckovalas [9], Eq. (26) allows for a 4 times larger Fm value, thus
providing potential for more intense contractive response upon
unloading following dilation. This was found necessary after trial-
and-error simulations of cyclic mobility tests for compensating
the effect of the use of the new more non-linear interpolation rule
(Eq. (22)). In addition, the term (pa/s1o) in Eq. (27) no longer
possesses an exponent, and in this way the proposed model has
one model constant less than the antecedent model [9], without
essential loss of accuracy in simulating cyclic loading.
Focusing on the operation of scalar hf, Fig. 4 presents the
simulation of an undrained cyclic simple shear test leading to
cyclic mobility. Observe in Fig. 4 that for load paths within the
dilatancy surface, scalar hf gradually increases due to its
numerator ensuring that the history of cyclic shearing leads to
stiffening response. In parallel, Eq. (25) makes the deviatoric
component f evolve only upon dilation (due to the Macaulay
brackets), and this in the opposite sense to tensor [Fmn+ f] due to
the negative sign in front of N. In this way, the of:n4 term in the
denominator of hf becomes non-zero, only upon load reversal
following a dilative shearing phase, and this due to the change in
Fig. 4. Simulation of an undrained cyclic simple shear test: (a) shear stress t—normal effective sv relation and (b) evolution of hf during the shearing.
901
the direction of n. In such a case, the increase of the denominator
ð27Þ
of hf leads to larger plastic strains (due to a decrease of Kp), which
under undrained conditions provides the well-known intense
contraction following dilation at small p values, that may
eventually lead to liquefaction or cyclic mobility (see Fig. 4b).
Further details on the operation of hf may be found in
Papadimitriou and Bouckovalas [9].
2.6. Triggering of load reversal
Both the two-surface and the new model require the definition
of a relocatable load reversal point that affects the values of the
‘‘elastic’’ and plastic strain rates. Specifically, the two-surface
model [8,9] had different triggering mechanisms of load reversal
for the ‘‘elastic’’ and the plastic strain rates. Nevertheless, given
the vanished elastic region of the new model, it was considered
more appropriate to hereby adopt a unique triggering mechanism
of load reversal for both strain rates. Thus, in the proposed model,
load reversal takes place when the scalar loading index L takes a
negative value, a triggering criterion that has been used success-
fully in the literature (e.g. [12,15]). When this occurs, the load
reversal point (reference state) is automatically relocated, giving
updated values to rref, pref and Gref
max .
The update in rref affects the location of the conjugate (image)
point on the bounding surface rbi (Fig. 1), which in turn affects the
direction of n (Eq. (14)), the cornerstone of the plastic strain rate.
In addition, load reversal affects the ‘‘elastic’’ strain rate, since the
‘‘elastic’’ moduli Gt and Kt reduce as a function of the |r–rref|
distance, pref and Gref
max (Eqs. (19) and (20)). Note that L remains
negative only momentarily, since there is no yield surface and the
response at every incremental step is elasto-plastic. Thus,
immediately after relocating rref, the direction of n changes and
the scalar loading index L becomes non-negative again, leading to
the estimation of plastic strains at every incremental step, as per
Eq. (8).
Note that, upon load reversal, both the ‘‘elastic’’ and the plastic
strain rates take values much smaller than those in the preceding
time step, thus accurately simulating the stiffer soil response
upon load reversal. More importantly, due to the adopted
interpolation rule (Eq. (22)) the plastic strain rate remains non-
zero upon load reversal, as opposed to other models which retain
in memory a last reference point and introduce a Kp-N
condition upon load reversal (e.g. [12,14,28]). It is believed that
902 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 895–911
the selected form of the interpolation rule reduces the unrealistic
(instability) effects of numerical perturbations causing false
triggering of the load reversal criterion in boundary value
problems, as compared to models that introduce a Kp-N
condition upon load reversal in favor of enhanced accuracy in
the simulations of (fully controlled) cyclic loading element tests.
It should be clarified that the mapping and interpolation rules,
as well as the related load reversal criterion which introduces a
discontinuously moving rref point, have been adopted with
seismic ground response analyses in mind. For non-proportional
non-monotonic paths that are not necessarily related to seismic
shaking (e.g. ratcheting, rotational shear) the constitutive model
has not been fully tested. However, Wang et al. [12] showed that
the adopted mapping rule (in relation to a memory loading
surface and not the bounding surface as performed here) may
provide successful simulations, at least for certain rotational shear
paths. Still, it is believed that successful simulations of various
non-proportional paths may require some additional constitutive
alterations (e.g. the incorporation of inherent anisotropy, as per
Dafalias et al. [46], and/or an additional loading mechanism, as
per Li and Dafalias [43]), that are not necessary in a two-surface
model like the antecedent one. Moreover, false triggering of the
load reversal criterion may potentially occur in cases that the
stress path approaches the bounding surface at a very shallow
angle, especially because the n is not necessarily normal to the
bounding surface (see Fig. 1). Nevertheless, such paths are not
common in the boundary value problems in question, while
defining the n as collinear to the normal to the rbi point would
make the constitutive equations much more complex (see [43]).
3. Model performance
3.1. General
The new model requires the calibration of 13 dimensionless
and positive constants for cyclic loading, and only 11 for
monotonic (setting a1 ¼1.0 makes the response independent of
g1 as well, see Eq. (19)). The full list is presented in Table 2, along
with their values for the Nevada sand database [49]). This table
also includes their range for typical non-cohesive soils based on
the literature and the authors’ experience. The first 10 constants
of the list may be directly estimated on the basis of the specified
monotonic and cyclic element tests, while the remaining 3
constants require trial-and-error simulations of element tests.
Due to paper length limitations, the calibration process is merely
outlined in Appendix and the reader is referred to [8] for further
details.
Table 2
Model constants: physical meaning, range for typical sands and values for Nevada sand.
# Physical meaning
Mcc Deviatoric stress ratio at critical state in triaxial compression (TC)
c Ratio of deviatoric stress ratios at critical state in triaxial extension (TE) over TC
Gcs Void ratio at critical state for p ¼ 1 kPa
l Slope of critical state line in the [e-lnp] space
B Elastic shear modulus constant
v Elastic Poisson’s ratio
kbc Effect of c on peak deviatoric stress ratio in TC
kdc Effect of c on dilatancy deviatoric stress ratio in TC
g1 Reference cyclic shear strain for non-linearity of ‘‘elastic’’ shear modulus
a1 Non-linearity of ‘‘elastic’’ shear modulus
Ao Dilatancy constant
ho Plastic modulus constant
No Fabric evolution constant
a
for monotonic loading of Nevada sand: B¼ 180, a1 ¼ 1.0 (that renders the value of g1 irrelevant due to T¼ 1 in Eq. (19)).
The new model has been implemented in FLAC [35], using the
user-defined-model (UDM) capability and therefore the remain-
der of this paper presents its accuracy in both element test
simulations, as well as different boundary value problems, using
the foregoing numerical algorithm. Note that the accuracy of the
antecedent two-surface model [8,9] has only been documented at
the element test level, since it was never implemented to a
numerical code.
In short, with the foregoing 2D computer code, the equations
of motion are integrated using the explicit central difference
integration rule. Darcy’s law is invoked for fluid flow in a porous
solid, while the incremental formulation of coupled deformation-
diffusion processes provides the numerical representations for the
linear quasi-static Biot theory. Stress integration of the constitu-
tive relations at each zone for a given strain increment e_ is
performed via a second order modified forward Euler method
with automatic error control [39,40], after appropriate manipula-
tion to account for the complexities of the proposed model.
Integration is accomplished in one or more sub-increments (or
substeps), in order to maintain the local truncation error at each
step below a desired tolerance level STOL set at this study equal to
10  3. Further details about the stress integration algorithm used
in the implementation, as well as its accuracy and efficiency for
boundary value problems involving earthquake-induced liquefac-
tion are presented in Andrianopoulos [36] and Andrianopoulos
et al. [37,38].
Note that all numerical simulations (at the element and
system level) hereby presented have been performed with the
set of values of the model constants of Table 2.
3.2. Element response
For completeness, the presentation initiates from monotonic
testing. Hence, Fig. 5 presents an exemplary comparison of
simulations to data from monotonic drained triaxial
compression tests under p ¼80 kPa ( ¼constant) conditions and
different initial relative densities Dr of Nevada sand [49]. Fig. 6
does the same for monotonic undrained triaxial compression tests
for Dr ¼60% and different initial p values for the same sand. It
becomes obvious that the proposed model offers reasonable
simulation of the drained and undrained monotonic response
under various initial stresses and densities with a single set of
model constants, that of Table 2 (note the use of B ¼180 and
a1 ¼1.0).
Yet, the scope of the new model is primarily the simulation of
seismic ground response and the first step for this purpose is
successful simulation of the cyclic response at the element level.
Typical Range Value
1.20–1.37 1.25
0.68–0.80 0.72
0.77–1.03 0.910
0.01–0.03 0.022
550–950 600a
0.10–0.40 0.33
0.5–4.0 1.45
0.1–3.0 0.30
0.0065%–0.025% 0.025%a
0.45–0.85 0.6a
0.5–1.5 0.8
3,000–100,000 15,000
30,000–80,000 40,000
 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 895–911
Fig. 5. Comparison of simulations to data from monotonic drained triaxial tests on
Nevada sand (p ¼80 kPa, constant) with Dr ¼40% (CIDC 40-100) and Dr ¼ 60% (CIDC
60-75).
Fig. 6. Comparison of simulations to data from monotonic undrained triaxial tests
on Nevada sand (Dr ¼60%) with po ¼80 kPa (CIUC 6011) and po ¼160 kPa (CIUC
6004).
Therefore, Fig. 7 presents the overall comparison of simulations to
data for cyclic shearing under small and medium cyclic shear
strain amplitudes measured in the resonant column device ([49]).
903
Fig. 7. Summary comparison of simulations to data from resonant column tests on
Nevada sand [49], in terms of: (a) the maximum shear modulus Gmax, (b) the
secant shear modulus G/Gmax degradation and (c) the hysteretic damping x
increase curves, with cyclic shear strain gcyc.
In particular, the comparison is made in terms of the maximum
shear modulus Gmax and the degradation of the secant shear
modulus G/Gmax and the increase of the hysteretic damping x with
the amplitude of the cyclic shear strain. Different symbols denote
different relative densities (40% and 60%), while the confining
pressure in these tests ranged from 40 to 160 kPa. The black
curves denote the model simulations, while the related gray
curves of Vucetic and Dobry [50] for plasticity index PI ¼0% are
also added to this figure for comparison purposes.
Focusing on the model accuracy under large cyclic shear strain
amplitudes, Fig. 8 presents a one-to-one comparison of
simulations to data from a typical cyclic undrained simple shear
test on Nevada sand at Dr ¼40% and initial effective stress
svo ¼80 kPa [49]. In order to ascertain whether such a
satisfactory accuracy is obtained for all initial conditions, Fig. 9
compares the liquefaction resistance curves from all cyclic simple
shear tests on Nevada sand [49] with the respective simulations
and pertinent curves from the literature [51]. Furthermore, model
accuracy has been also ascertained in terms of the rate of excess
pore pressure Du buildup in the cycles that precede initial
liquefaction. An example of such an overall comparison is
904 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 895–911
Fig. 8. Comparison of simulation to data for a typical cyclic undrained simple shear test on Nevada sand with Dr ¼40% [49].
Fig. 9. Summary comparison of liquefaction curves from simulations to data from
all cyclic undrained simple shear tests on Nevada sand [49], as well as established
curves from the literature [51].
presented in Fig. 10, where the excess pore pressure after the first
load cycle Du1 from all cyclic simple shear tests is compared to
the respective values from the simulations. The emphasis given
on the first load cycle is backed by the fact that experimental data
show that the rate of Du buildup decreases after the first (most
significant) cycle and increases again only on approaching initial
liquefaction (e.g. see typical rate of Du buildup according to Seed
and Booker [52]).
Overall, a comparison of the proposed model performance
with that of the antecedent model does not show significant
improvement at the element level. Yet, the benefit becomes
apparent by the fact that the new model has one model constant
Fig. 10. Summary comparison of simulations to data from all cyclic undrained
simple shear tests on Nevada sand [49], in terms of the excess pore pressure after
the first load cycle Du1.
less for cyclic loading, while for monotonic loading the number of
model constants reduces by three.
3.3. Seismic response of horizontal liquefiable layer
Results from centrifuge Model tests No 1 and No 2 of the
VELACS project have been used to test the ability of the new
model in simulating the one-dimensional (1D) seismic response
of a liquefiable soil layer under level and mildly sloping ground
conditions, respectively. This paper presents comparisons of
simulations to data from centrifuge Model tests No 1, while
documentation regarding the validation run of centrifuge Model
test No 2 can be found in Andrianopoulos et al. [37].
The test arrangement and the instrumentation for the fore-
going model test are shown in Fig. 11. In prototype scale, the
experiment refers to a 10 m deep Nevada Sand layer of
approximately 40% relative density [49], with a permeability
coefficient of 2.1  10  5 m/s. The water surface was 1 m above the
ground surface. The centrifuge model was built inside a laminar
box, which was tested at 50g centrifugal acceleration. The
excitation applied at the base of the laminar box was essentially
sinusoidal with a peak horizontal acceleration amplitude of
0.235g, a strong motion duration of approximately 11 s and a
 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 895–911
Fig. 11. Schematic illustration of testing configuration of VELACS centrifuge Model No.1 test.
Fig. 12. Time history of base horizontal acceleration for VELACS centrifuge Model
No 1 test [49].
predominant frequency of 2 Hz (Fig. 12) in prototype scale. The
response of the level ground was monitored along the axis as well
as closer to the box boundaries with eight (8) accelerometers,
eight (8) pore pressure transducers and six (6) LVDTs measuring
displacements.
The finite-difference grid used for the numerical analysis of the
prototype sand layer consisted of 1.0 m  1.0 m square elements
(‘zones’ in FLAC terminology). The actual relative density of the
sand was Dr ¼45%, somewhat larger than the Dr ¼40% originally
specified [49]. Thus, the sand was assumed uniform with an initial
void ratio of 0.724, corresponding to the former value of Dr. The
bottom nodes of this grid were set to follow the prescribed input
motion in both directions. In particular, in the horizontal direction
the bottom nodes followed the (digitally available) VELACS
horizontal acceleration time-history shown in Fig. 12. The
parasitic vertical acceleration during the experiments was minor
and consequently was not taken into account in the numerical
simulation. The lateral boundaries were free to move in horizontal
and vertical direction, while tied to one-another in order to
enforce the same horizontal and vertical displacements of the two
boundaries, thus simulating the laminar box device used in the
centrifuge test. A uniform normal stress and related pore
pressures were applied at the top boundary, to simulate the 1 m
905
Fig. 13. Variation of permeability used in the numerical simulation of the VELACS
centrifuge Model No 1 test (based on Arulanandan and Sybico [54]).
thick free water layer. Flow was allowed only at the top boundary,
while the bottom and the lateral boundaries were assumed
impermeable.
Initially static equilibrium was achieved, in order to create the
geostatic stress field, and then the dynamic motion was applied.
The initial static equilibrium was achieved by assuming elastic
behavior for the soil corresponding to a Ko value equal to 0.5
(elastic Poisson’s ratio equal to 0.33), since no further details were
given in the factual report [49]. A coupled dynamic analysis was
performed, taking into account the interaction between the
mechanical behavior and the diffusion process. The permeability
coefficient of the sand was scaled appropriately in order to take
into account: (a) the faster diffusion rate occurring at centrifugal
Ng accelerations, since water was used as pore fluid in this
experiment (kprototype ¼Nkmodel) and (b) the significant evolution
of sand fabric during the process of soil liquefaction, which
temporarily increases the permeability coefficient. Namely, the
permeability variation shown in Fig. 13 was used, where the
initial permeability increases rapidly as the soil approaches initial
liquefaction (to2 s), while it decreases more smoothly thereafter.
The permeability at the point of initial liquefaction when the soil
particles lose full contact with each other and water flow paths
are greater, reaches 6.35 times the initial value, while the mean
906 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 895–911
increase throughout shaking reaches the value of 1.67. This
procedure was also used by Manzari and Arulanandan [53] to
simulate VELACS Model 1, incorporating in this manner the
findings of Arulanandan and Sybico [54], who investigated the
change of sand fabric during liquefaction using electrical
properties to measure changes in pore shape factor and tortuosity.
Fig. 14 compares the time histories of the excess pore pressure
ratio ru ¼ Du/svo from the centrifuge test recordings to their
numerically simulated counterparts, at various depths ( 1.45,
2.6, 5.0,  7.5 m) of the sand layer, always along the axis of
the centrifuge model. Both recordings and simulations show
initial liquefaction (ru ¼1.0) in the upper 5–7 m. In particular, very
high values of ru develop from the first seconds of the shaking in
the upper 2.5 m, while deeper locations develop similarly high
values of ru at later stages of the shaking. Moreover, the rates of
excess pore pressure buildup and dissipation are satisfactorily
simulated, with the possible exception of the first 2 loading cycles
during which the model shows more intense buildup than the
data.
Fig. 15 compares the time histories of ground acceleration (in
percent of g) from the centrifuge test recordings to their
numerically simulated counterparts, at the ground surface (AH3)
and at the mid-depth (AH5 at a depth 5.0 m) of the sand layer
and along the axis of the centrifuge model. The agreement is
satisfactory. It is especially noteworthy that the both the
Fig. 14. Comparison of data to simulations for the time history of the excess pore pressure ratio Du/svo developed at various depths along the axis of the model of the
VELACS centrifuge Model No 1 test.
Fig. 15. Comparison of data to simulations for the time history of the horizontal acceleration developed at various depths along the axis of the model of the VELACS
centrifuge Model No 1 test.
recording and the simulation depict a liquefaction-induced
deamplification of the acceleration at the ground surface. More
importantly, after t¼ 5 s the extensive liquefaction of the ground
nullifies the acceleration at the ground surface, as deduced by
both the recording and the simulation. At the mid-depth of the
sand layer, this deamplification is less intense in both simulation
and recording, and especially the latter. The differences observed
at this depth may be attributed to the relatively lower recorded
versus simulated excess pore pressures from the depth of  5.0 m
and below.
This centrifuge test also showed significant free-field settle-
ments (of the order of 20 cm), which developed mostly during
shaking and not in the post-shaking excess pore pressure
dissipation phase. Qualitatively, this type of settlement accumu-
lation was attributed by Arulanandan and Sybico [54] to the sand
fabric changes during initial liquefaction, where the increase of
permeability (see Fig. 13) and the consequent faster dissipation
tend to counterbalance the buildup of excess pore pressures due
to shaking, while simultaneous sand grain sedimentation in-
creases surface settlements. The numerical simulation also
showed development of settlement during shaking, but its total
amount was much smaller (4 cm). The inability of numerical
analyses to predict this amount of free-field settlement
was demonstrated in the VELACS project, where, apart from Lacy
[55] and Manzari and Arulanandan [53], most of numerical
 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 895–911
simulations ranged between 1 and 7 cm. In the present study,
this disagreement can be attributed to: (a) the inability of the
model to predict plastic deformations for paths under (nearly)
constant values of the deviatoric stress ratio r, (b) the inability of
the model to simulate the sand fabric changes during initial
liquefaction, as these were highlighted above by Arulanandan and
Sybico [54], besides the macroscopic change in permeability.
However, as depicted in paragraph 3.4 that follows, the foregoing
under-prediction of free-field settlements, did not affect the
accuracy in simulating foundation settlements, for which the
mechanism of loading and settlement accumulation is quite
different.
3.4. Seismic response of shallow foundations on liquefiable soil
The ability of the proposed model to simulate soil-structure
interaction in a liquefiable soil regime is validated via comparison
of simulations to measurements from the VELACS centrifuge
Model test No 12 which simulates the response of shallow
foundations on liquefiable soils. The test arrangement and the
instrumentation for the foregoing test are shown in Fig. 16. In
prototype scale, the experiment refers to a 6 m deep Nevada sand
layer with 60% relative density [49] and permeability coefficient
of 2.1  10  5 m/s, overlaid by a 1 m thick, low permeability
(5  10  9 m/s), Bonnie silt layer, with the free water surface being
1 m above the silt surface. A 4 m high and 3 m wide rigid square
structure is seated 0.5 m below the silt-sand interface (and in the
plan center of the model container), inducing an average bearing
pressure of 150 kPa.
The centrifuge model was built inside a rigid box with an
inside plan area of 282 mm  128 mm and tested at Ng¼100g
centrifugal acceleration. In general, the response of the ground
and the structure was monitored with three (3) accelerometers
(AccB, AccC and AccD), located at different depths under the
foundation, three (3) pore pressure transducers (PPT1, PPT2 and
Fig. 16. Schematic illustration of testing configuration of VELACS centrifuge Model
No 12 test, including the mesh and the applied boundary conditions of the
numerical simulation.
Table 3
Measured structural settlements and pertinent numerical estimates, on the basis of the characteristics of the applied base excitation for the VELACS Model No 12.
Source # amax(g)
Princeton University (PRNU) 1 0.30
3 0.40
5 0.21
6 0.24
University of California at Davis (UCD) 2 0.37
3 0.25
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) 1 0.26
Numerical 1 0.24
2 0.32
907
PPT3) also located under the foundation, one (1) pore pressure
transducer (PPT4) placed in the free field, as well as, one (1) LVDT
monitoring the structural settlement. The locations of the fore-
going instruments are approximately depicted in Fig. 16.
A series of centrifuge tests were performed for Model No 12 at
three different universities, namely at Princeton University
(PRNU, [56]), at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI, [57])
and the University of California at Davis (UCD, [58]). However,
some of the performed tests had deviations from the original
specifications, especially at the base input motion, whose target
excitation consisted of ten (10), more or less, uniform cycles of
purely horizontal acceleration with 0.25g amplitude and 2 Hz
frequency. To explore these deviations, Table 3 presents a list of
the successfully executed centrifuge tests of Model No 12 with the
values of the peak acceleration amax (maximum absolute value
during strong shaking), the average acceleration aave (average
value of positive and negative peaks of all significant cycles during
strong shaking), the duration of strong motion td and the values of
the residual structural settlement, as measured from the various
tests, while Fig. 17 presents the applied acceleration of the test at
RPI, that was similar to the target excitation (that was never
attained experimentally).
The finite difference mesh used for the numerical analysis is
also presented in Fig. 16. As depicted in this figure, the zone size
varied from 0.75 m  0.5 m at the vicinity of the structure to
1.5 m  1.0 m far from its location, and the total number of zones
was 280. The input acceleration used in the simulations was
similar to the target excitation (see Fig. 17 for comparison with
the RPI test acceleration), and was applied both at the bottom and
the lateral boundaries in order to simulate the rigid box device.
The vertical acceleration during the experiments was minimal
and was not taken into account during the numerical simulation.
Bonnie silt layer was simulated by using a simplified version of
the proposed model, which includes only the Ramberg–Osgood
type stress–strain relation (Eqs. (19) and (20)) appropriately
calibrated to simulate the non-linear hysteretic response of a fine
Fig. 17. Comparison of numerically applied and measured time history of base
horizontal acceleration for VELACS centrifuge Model No 12 test (data from test that had
input base motion close to the target excitation and was performed at RPI).
aave(g) td(sec) Settlement (cm)
0.26 6.65 27
0.34 6.70 47
0.18 5.40 22
0.21 5.50 21
0.31 7.50 18
0.21 6.40 9
0.21 5.70 13
0.21 5.75 10.8
0.30 7.25 15.2
908 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 895–911

soil with plasticity index PI¼ 15% (B ¼500, e¼0.70, a1 ¼0.64,

g1 ¼0.027%, n ¼0.33). This type of simulation of Bonnie silt is
simplistic, but preferable over using any elastic-perfectly plastic
model available in FLAC, given the inability of such models to
accurately simulate the shear modulus degradation and hysteretic
damping over a wide range of cyclic shear strains. Moreover, this
simplification is not expected to affect the structure settlement
results, since: (a) the structure was founded on the sand and not
the silt layer, (b) the observed mode of failure was mainly
‘punching through’ and not ‘general failure’ and (c) the thickness
of the silt layer is small compared to that of the sand.
The structure was simulated as a rigid block (elastic elements
of very high stiffness) of appropriate unit weight to portray the
desired contact pressure. Since the numerical analysis assumed a
2D plane strain behavior, the actual bearing pressure of the
structure in the 3D model (150 kPa) was reduced to its 2D plane
strain equivalent (95 kPa), as suggested by Popescu and Prevost
[59]. No interface elements were used between the structure and
the rest of the grid. Furthermore, uniform normal stress and
related pore pressures were applied at the top soil boundary, to
simulate the 1 m thick free water layer.
Static equilibrium was achieved by ‘‘building’’ the structure in
multiple steps, and before applying the dynamic excitation. The
initial static equilibrium was achieved by assuming elastic
behavior for the soil corresponding to Ko value equal to 0.5
(elastic Poisson’s ratio equal to 0.33), since no further details were
Fig. 18. Comparison of data to simulations for the time history of the horizontal
given in the factual report [49]. As in the previous case of the level acceleration developed at various depths below the structure of the VELACS
ground response, a coupled dynamic analysis was performed, centrifuge Model No 12 test (data from RPI test with input motion shown in
taking into account the interaction between the mechanical Fig. 13).
behavior and the diffusion process, while the permeability
coefficient was scaled appropriately in order to take into account
the faster diffusion rate of the pore water occurring at centrifugal where high excess pore pressures leading to liquefaction are
Ng accelerations (kprototype ¼N kmodel). Opposite to the previous observed from the initial stages of shaking. On the other hand,
case, no further adjustment of permeability was made for the transducers PP1, PP2 and PP3 in the vicinity of the structure show
evolution of sand fabric during initial liquefaction (as per [53,54]), no liquefaction. Overall, the comparison between numerical and
since only a small portion of the sand layer liquefied. It is the test results is satisfactory, given the fact that most of the
authors’ belief that such type of permeability adjustment should measured excess pore pressure ratios presented has been
potentially be applied only when a great portion of a sand layer smoothed in this figure (as per [60]). The only consistent
liquefies and only when the driving stresses do not produce deviation between numerical and experimental results observed
significant dilation spikes during liquefaction (e.g. due to a static in Fig. 19 is the rate of excess pore pressure dissipation after the
shear stress offset (in gently sloping ground), or due to rocking end of the strong motion (t ¼6.5 s), with the measured rates
effects when a tall superstructure is present). (especially those from the RPI test) being higher that the
Fig. 18 presents a comparison between the simulated seismic simulated ones. One possible explanation for this observed
accelerations at two discrete depths below the structure and the difference is the aforementioned approximate simulation of the
respective recordings from the test at RPI. Observe that the real base input after 6.5 s of shaking.
numerical results plot reasonably close to the centrifuge data, at In addition, Fig. 20 compares the time history of structural
least during the strong motion phase (up to 6 s). After the strong settlement from the numerical analysis to those measured in the
motion phase, the simulations depict smaller accelerations at tests with input motions close to the target excitation, namely
both depths compared to the measurements, a discrepancy that is PRNU (#5, #6), UCD (#3) and the RPI test. Observe that both
attributed to the fact that the real input base motion continues measured and simulated structural settlements are accumulated
with reduced amplitude even after 6 seconds of shaking, contrary only during strong shaking, with the simulation leading to a
to its numerically applied counterpart, which simulates the target residual value of settlement equal to 10.8 cm, which is close to the
excitation (see Fig. 17 for comparison of base motions). lower limit of the three presented tests (ranging from 9 to 22 cm).
Comparing the seismic amplifications at the two locations it is However, mainly due to deviations of the input motion in the
noted, that the numerical analysis depicts a slight amplification of various tests performed by the three universities (ranging from
the input motion (0.36g for ACC-C and 0.33g for ACC-B), while 0.21 to 0.37g), the structural settlements measured during the
similar response is measured in the centrifuge test (0.32g for both whole series of tests ranged between 9 and 47 cm, with the higher
ACC-C and ACC-B). values corresponding to the higher input intensities (see Table 3).
Fig. 19 compares predicted and recorded time histories of the In order to investigate whether the proposed model reproduces
excess pore pressure ratios ru ¼ Du/svo at the locations of the pore the aforementioned increase of measured structural settlements
pressure transducers. Note that this figure includes data only from due to higher intensity motions, a second numerical analysis was
the tests that had input base motions similar to the target performed with intensity comparable to the higher intensities
excitation and were performed in all three universities, namely (equal to 0.32g, as compared to base case of 0.25g, see Table 2).
PRNU (#5, #6), UCD (#3) and the RPI test. In particular, the The results of this investigation are presented in Fig. 21, where it
location of pore pressure transducer PP4 is representative of the is deduced that the numerically estimated structural settlements
conditions away from the structure, i.e. the free-field conditions, (dashed trend line) compare quite well with the measured ones at
 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 895–911
Fig. 19. Comparison of data to simulations for the time history of the excess pore pressure ratio Du/svo developed at various depths below the structure (PPT1, PPT2, PP3),
as well as the free-field (PPT4) of the VELACS centrifuge Model No 12 test (data from tests RPI #1, PRNU #5 and #6, UCD #3).
Fig. 20. Comparison of data to simulations for the time history of the structural
settlement of the VELACS centrifuge Model No 12 test (data from tests: RPI #1,
PRNU #5, UCD #3).
Fig. 21. Effect of peak acceleration of the input base motion on the residual
structural settlement, based on a compilation of simulations and data from the
various centrifuge tests from Model No 12 (see Table 2).
RPI and U.C. Davis under various levels of shaking (lower solid
trend line). On the contrary, the tests performed at Princeton
University gave consistently higher values of settlement (upper
909
solid trend line), a fact that is attributed to problems related to the
measuring device used (see [60] for details).
4. Summary and conclusions
This paper presents the constitutive relations and the
simulative potential of a new bounding surface plasticity model
developed mainly for the seismic liquefaction analysis of
geostructures. The new model builds on the two-surface model
of Papadimitriou and Bouckovalas [9] and introduces specific
constitutive alterations aimed at potentially enhancing its
accuracy, but mainly facilitating its implementation to numerical
codes. In particular, the ‘‘small’’ conical yield surface of the two-
surface model is reduced to a straight line emanating from the
stress space origin, a change that dictated a number of revisions,
the most important being the definition of the loading direction
and the forms of the mapping and interpolation rules.
The new model proves able to simulate successfully the cyclic
response of Nevada sand in element tests under small, medium and
large cyclic shear strain amplitudes, irrespective of the initial
conditions, with a single set of values of the 13 model constants
(one less than the two-surface model). This is attributed to three
(3) basic constitutive ingredients: the dependence of model
surfaces on the state parameter c (first proposed by Manzari and
Dafalias [6]), the Ramberg–Osgood type formulation of the ‘‘elastic’’
moduli that governs the response under small to medium cyclic
shear strains and the sand fabric evolution scalar multiplier hf of
the plastic modulus that ensures accuracy in the simulations under
medium to large cyclic shear strains, exactly as in the two-surface
model. Moreover, the new model shows reasonable accuracy in the
simulation of the monotonic response of the same sand.
Unlike the two-surface model, the new bounding surface
plasticity model has been implemented in a numerical code (FLAC),
thus enabling further verification for different boundary value
problems involving earthquake-induced liquefaction. In particular,
this paper presents the verification against two VELACS centrifuge
experiments, related to the free-field liquefaction response of a
sand layer (Model No 1), and the seismic response of a rigid
foundation on a sand layer (Model No 12), whereas Andrianopou-
los et al. [37] do the same for the laterally spreading response of a
910 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 895–911
liquefied sand layer (Model No 2). In all presented simulations,
transient and permanent ground motions, as well as excess pore
pressures in the foundation soil and in the free field were
successfully simulated using the same set of values for the model
constants calibrated on the basis of laboratory element tests. This is
credible evidence that the new model is a fairly reliable numerical
tool for performance-based design in the hands of practitioners, as
well as an indispensable weapon for researchers in gaining
valuable insight to the complex mechanisms which control the
liquefied ground response and soil-structure interaction.
Acknowledgements
The research presented herein was funded by the General
Secretariat for Research and Technology (G.G.E.T.) of Greece, through
research project EPAN-DP23 (‘‘X-SOILS’’) and by the Basic Research
Fund ‘‘Lefkippos’’ of N.T.U.A. (Grant no. 65/1506). These contributions
are gratefully acknowledged. The authors would also like to sincerely
thank the two anonymous reviewers, whose constructive comments
greatly enhanced the quality of the manuscript.
5. Appendix Calibration of model constants
Given the resemblance of the proposed with the antecedent
model, their calibration process need not be presented in full
detail. Further details may be found in Papadimitriou et al. [8] in
which constants are similarly denoted, with the exception of No
that appeared as Ho.
Part A: Calibration of 10 directly ratable constants:
(a) Critical state constants, Gcs, l, Mcc and c: These are estimated on
the basis of monotonic element tests (usually triaxial compres-
sion and extension) that have reached the critical state.
(b) Elastic Poisson’s ratio, v: This constant has usually small
variability in natural sands (e.g. 0.10 to 0.40) and may be
estimated by small-strain measurements (e.g. cross hole in
non-saturated soils), or from the initial stages of 1D unloading
with lateral stress measurements (e.g. in a triaxial cell).
(c) State parameter dependence constants, kbc and kdc : Their
calibration requires monotonic compression tests (at least
two) that initiate from different initial conditions and are
based on correlating the deviatoric stress ratios at the peak
and at the phase transformation, respectively, to the values of
c at which they are attained.
(d) Shear modulus degradation constants, g1 and a1: As shown in
[8], their values may be estimated from resonant column
tests, by fitting the Ramberg–Osgood relation to the G/Gmax
versus cyclic shear strain data. For this purpose, the value of
g1 should be correlated to the volumetric threshold shear
strain a~ tv, which has generally small variability and for non-
plastic soils ranges from 0.0065% to 0.025% [32]. Then, the
value of a1 practically corresponds to the value of G/Gmax that
corresponds to the selected a~ 1 value of cyclic shear strain on
the basis of the resonant column data. In lack of pertinent
data for the sand at hand, the literature may be successfully
used (e.g. Vucetic and Dobry [50], Ishibashi and Zhang [61]),
or a value ranging between 0.55 and 0.75 is usually
appropriate [29]. For monotonic loading, the a1 is always set
to 1.0, which makes Eq. (19) purely hypoelastic (T¼1) and
independent of g1.
(e) Dilatancy constant, Ao: Calibration of this constant requires good
quality (small sampling interval) stress-dilatancy data, preferably
from drained triaxial tests. In such a case, one should plot the
ever-current value of the deviatoric stress ratio versus the
dilatancy, i.e. the ratio of the plastic volumetric strain increment
over its deviatoric counterpart, or, with adequate accuracy, the
ratio of the respective total strain increments that are directly
measured. By depicting the deviatoric stress ratio at phase
transformation (where D¼0 at high stress ratios), one may
proceed to the calibration of Ao on the basis of Eq. (28) focusing
on the area of intermediate to high values of the deviatoric stress
ratio, for better accuracy. If step (f) is performed first, then the
estimation of Ao may be based on the ratio of the plastic strain
increments, by subtracting the pertinent elastic strain compo-
nents from the measured strain increments, but the gain in
accuracy is usually small.
Part B: Calibration of 3 remaining constants, using trial-and-error
runs, as follows:
(f) hypoelastic shear modulus constant, B: Its calibration requires
comparison of shear modulus values from simple shear
loading paths initiating from a Ko ¼1 condition and not
exceeding cyclic shear strains of 5  10  6 to pertinent
small-strain measurements (e.g. from resonant column tests,
from shear wave velocity measurements via bender elements
(lab) or geophysical testing (insitu)). The need for trial-and-
error runs for B stems from the fact that due to the vanished
elastic region, the model exhibits elasto-plastic response even
for small cyclic shear strains. Therefore a direct estimation of
B on the basis of Eq. (19) with T¼ 1 from data may only serve
as a lower limit for B, unlike in the antecedent two-surface
model in which it gave the final value without any need for
trial-and-error runs. As in [8], for monotonic loading the B
value must be reduced (usually by 2 to 4 times) and is
calibrated by fitting Eq. (19) with T¼1 to the initial stages of
the deviatoric stress strain relation of monotonic triaxial tests.
(g) plastic modulus constant, ho: Its value may be estimated by
fitting both the effective stress path and the stress-strain
relation of monotonic tests (e.g. triaxial, simple shear), or the
first cycle of large-strain cyclic tests. If both drained and
undrained tests are available, then these trial-and-error runs
may also be used for indirectly calibrating constants for which
relevant data are not usually available (e.g. elastic Poisson’s
ratio v, as in the case of Nevada sand [49]). The foregoing trial-
and-error simulations are not affected by the exact value of
the remaining constant No, since the fabric evolution scalar hf
does not change considerably during such paths.
(h) fabric evolution intensity constant, No: The calibration of No is
based on fitting large-strain cyclic shear tests and preferably
cyclic undrained simple shear tests if the end goal is the
numerical simulation of liquefaction related phenomena. In
particular, the value of No is pinpointed by fitting the rate of
excess pore pressure buildup during cyclic loading, as well as
the number of cycles to reach initial liquefaction. Obviously,
the more cyclic tests are used for fine-tuning No the better, but
in lack of relevant data one may resort to the literature. For
example, the rate of excess pore pressure buildup in element
tests may be modeled according to Seed and Booker [58], while
the number of cycles to liquefaction may be estimated on the
basis of liquefaction resistance curves, preferably from shaking
table (e.g. [51]) or cyclic simple shear tests (e.g. [62]).
References
[1] Prevost JH. Plasticity theory for soil stress-strain behaviour. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, ASCE 1978;104(5):1177–94.
[2] Cubrinovski M, Ishihara K. State concept and modified elastoplasticity for
sand modelling. Soils Foundations 1998;38(4):213–25.
 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 895–911
[3] Yang Z, Elgamal A, Parra E. Computational model for cyclic mobility and
associated shear deformation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE 2003;129(12):1119–27.
[4] Yang Z, Elgamal A. Multi-surface cyclic plasticity sand model with Lode angle
effect. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 2008;26:335–48.
[5] Poorooshasb HB, Pietruszczak S. A generalized flow theory for sand. Soils and
Foundations 1986;26(2):1–15.
[6] Manzari MT, Dafalias YF. A critical state two-surface plasticity model for
sands. Geotechnique 1997;47(2):255–72.
[7] Gajo A, Wood DM. A kinematic hardening constitutive model for sands: the
multiaxial formulation. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics 1999;23:925–65.
[8] Papadimitriou AG, Bouckovalas GD, Dafalias YF. Plasticity model for sand
under small and large cyclic strains. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering ASCE 2001;127(11):973–83.
[9] Papadimitriou AG, Bouckovalas GD. Plasticity model for sand under small and
large cyclic strains: a multiaxial formulation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 2002;22:191–204.
[10] Loukidis D, Salgado R. Modeling sand response using two-surface plasticity.
Computers & Geotechnics 2009;36(1–2):166–86.
[11] Hachiguchi K, Ueno M. Elastoplastic constitutive laws of granular materials,
Proceedings, Constitutive Equations of Soils. Ninth International Conference
of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering 1977;Sp. Session 9:73–82.
[12] Wang Z-L, Dafalias YF, Shen CK. Bounding surface hypoplasticity model for
sand. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE 1990;116(5):983–1001.
[13] Li XS, Dafalias YF, Wang ZL. State-dependent dilatancy in critical-state
constitutive modelling of sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 1999;36(4):
599–611.
[14] Li XS. A sand model with state-dependent dilatancy. Geotechnique 2002;52(3):
173–86.
[15] Pastor M, Zienkiewicz OC, Chan AHC. Generalized plasticity and the modeling
of soil behaviour. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods
in Geomechanics 1990;14(3):151–90.
[16] Iai S, Matsunaga Y, Kameoka T. Strain space plasticity model for cyclic
mobility. Soils and Foundations 1992;32(2):1–15.
[17] Ling HI, Liu H. Pressure-level dependency and densification behavior of sand
through generalized plasticity model. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE
2003;129(8):851–60.
[18] Ling HI, Yang S. Unified sand model based on the critical state and
generalized plasticity. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 2006;132(12):
1380–91.
[19] Park S-S, Byrne PM, Practical constitutive model for soil liquefaction. In:
Proceedings of the ninth international symposium on numerical models in
geomechanics (NUMOG IX), 2004. p. 181–186.
[20] Lopez-Querol S, Blazquez R. Liquefaction and cyclic mobility model for
saturated granular media. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics 2006;30:413–39.
[21] Yang Y, Muraleetharan KK, Yu HS. A middle surface concept (MSC) model for
saturated sands in general stress space. International Journal for Numerical
and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 2006;30:389–412.
[22] Park I-J, Desai CS. Cyclic behavior and liquefaction of sand using disturbed
state concept. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE 2000;126(9):834–46.
[23] Aubry D, Hujeux J-C, Lassoudiere F, Meimon Y. A double memory model with
multiple mechanisms for cyclic behaviour. In: Proceedings of the interna-
tional symposium on numerical models, Balkema, 1982. p. 3–13.
[24] Bauer E, Wu W. A hypoplastic model for granular soils under cyclic loading.
In: Kolymbas D, editor. Modern Approaches to Plasticity. Elsevier; 1993. p.
247–58.
[25] Houlsby GT, Mortara G. A Continuous Hyperplasticity Model for Sands under
Cyclic Loading. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Cyclic
Behaviour of Soils and Liquefaction Phenomena, Bochum, Germany, 31
March–2 April 2004, 21–26, Balkema.
[26] Been K, Jefferies MG. A state parameter for sands. Geotechnique 1985;35(2):
99–112.
[27] Jefferies MG. Nor-Sand: a simple critical state model for sand. Geotechnique
1993;43(1):91–103.
[28] Dafalias YF, Manzari MT. Simple plasticity sand model accounting for fabric
change effects. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE 2004;130(6):622–34.
[29] Papadimitriou AG. Elastoplastic modelling of monotonic and dynamic
behavior of soils, Doctorate Thesis, Department of Geotechnical Engineering,
Faculty of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, June,
1999, (in Greek).
[30] Papadimitriou AG, Bouckovalas GD, Dafalias YF. Use of elasto-plasticity to
simulate cyclic sand behavior. In: Proceedings of the second international
conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Lisbon, 1999. 1: p.
125–130.
[31] Dafalias YF, Manzari MT. Modeling of fabric effect on the cyclic loading
response of granular soils, In: Proceedings, 13th ASCE Engineering Mechanics
Specialty Conference, 1999, Baltimore (in CD-ROM).
[32] Vucetic M. Cyclic threshold shear strains in soils. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 1994;120(12):2208–28.
[33] Dafalias YF. On cyclic and anisotropic plasticity: (i) a general model including
material behavior under stress reversals, (ii) anisotropic hardening for
initially orthotropic materials, PhD Thesis, 1975, University of California,
Berkeley.
911
[34] Dafalias YF, Popov EP. A model of nonlinearly hardening materials for
complex loadings. Acta Mechanica 1975;21(3):173–92.
[35] Itasca. Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Itasca
Consulting Group Inc.,; 2005.
[36] Andrianopoulos KI. Numerical modeling of static and dynamic behavior of
elastoplastic soils, Doctorate Thesis, 2006; Department of Geotechnical
Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of
Athens (in Greek).
[37] Andrianopoulos KI, Papadimitriou AG, Bouckovalas GD. Explicit integration of
bounding surface model for analysis of earthquake soil liquefaction.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,
2009 doi:10.1002/nag.875.
[38] Andrianopoulos KI, Papadimitriou AG, Bouckovalas GD. Use of a new
bounding surface model for the analysis of earthquake-induced liquefaction
phenomena. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering; paper No. 1443, 2007.
[39] Sloan SW. Substepping schemes for the numerical integration of elastoplastic
stress – strain relations. International Journal of Numerical Methods on
Engineering, 1987;24:893–911.
[40] Sloan SW, Abbo AJ, Sheng D. Refined explicit integration of elastoplastic models
with automatic error control. Engineering Computations 2001;18(1/2):121–54.
[41] Martin J, Cundall PA. Mixed discretisation procedure for accurate solution of
plasticity problems. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics 1982;6:129–39.
[42] Ishihara K, Tatsuoka F, Yasuda S. Undrained deformation and liquefaction of
sand under cyclic stresses. Soils and Foundations 1975;15(1):29–44.
[43] Li XS, Dafalias YF. A constitutive framework for anisotropic sand including
non-proportional loading. Geotechnique 2004;54(1):41–55.
[44] Andrianopoulos KI, Papadimitriou AG, Bouckovalas GD. Bounding surface
models of sands: pitfalls of mapping rules for cyclic loading. In: Proceedings
of the 11th international conference of IACMAG, Torino, June 19–24, 2005,
Vol. 1, p. 241–248.
[45] Dowell M, Jarratt P. The Pegasus method for computing the root of an
equation. BIT 1972;12:503–8.
[46] Dafalias YF, Papadimitriou AG, Li XS. Sand plasticity model accounting for
inherent fabric anisotropy. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE
2004;130(11):1319–33.
[47] Ladd CC, Foott R, Ishihara K, Schlosser F, Poulos HG. Stress-deformation and
strength characteristics, State-of-the-art Report. In: Proceedings of the ninth
international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering,
Tokyo, 1977. 2: p. 421–494.
[48] Nemat-Nasser S, Tobita Y. Influence of fabric on liquefaction and densifica-
tion potential of cohesionless sand. Mechanics of Materials 1982;1:43–62.
[49] Arulmoli K, Muraleetharan KK, Hossain MM, Fruth LS. VELACS verification of
liquefaction analyses by centrifuge studies -Laboratory Testing Program –
Soil Data Report, Research Report, The Earth. Technology Corporation, 1992.
[50] Vucetic M, Dobry R. Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 1991;117(1):89–107.
[51] DeAlba P, Seed HB, Chan CK. Sand liquefaction in large-scale simple shear
tests. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division 1976;102(9):909–27.
[52] Seed HB, Booker JR. Stabilization of potentially liquefiable sand deposits
using gravel drains. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE
1977;103(7):755–68.
[53] Manzari MT, Arulanandan K. Numerical predictions for Model No. 1. In:
Proceedings of the international conference on verification of numerical
procedures for the analysis of soil liquefaction problems, Davis, CA, 17–20
October, 1994. 1: p. 179–185.
[54] Arulanandan K, Sybico J. Post liquefaction settlement of sands, Proceedings,
Wroth Memorial Symposium. England: Oxford University; 1992.
[55] Lacy SJ. Numerical prediction for Model No. 1. In: Proceedings of the international
conference on verification of numerical procedures for the analysis of soil
liquefaction problems, Davis, CA, 17–20 October, 1994. 1: p. 153–168.
[56] Krstelj I, Prevost JH. Experimental results of Model No. 12. In: Proceedings of
the international conference on verification of numerical procedures for the
analysis of soil liquefaction problems, Davis, CA, 17–20 October, 1994. 1:
p. 1007–1017.
[57] Carnevalle R, Elgamal A. Experimental results of RPI centrifuge Model No. 12.
In: Proceedings of the international conference on verification of numerical
procedures for the analysis of soil liquefaction problems, Davis, CA, 17–20
October, 1994. 1: p. 1019–1026.
[58] Farrel T, Kutter B. Experimental results of Model No. 12. In: Proceedings of the
international conference on verification of numerical procedures for the analysis
of soil liquefaction problems, Davis, CA, 17–20 October, 1994. 1: p. 1027–1034.
[59] Popescu R, Prevost JH. Numerical class ‘‘A’’ predictions for Model Nos 1, 2, 3,
4a, 4b, 6, 7, 11 & 12, Proceedings, International Conference on Verification of
Numerical Procedures for the Analysis of Soil Liquefaction Problems, Davis,
CA, 17-20 October, 1994, 2: 1105–1207.
[60] Prevost JH, Krstelj I, Popescu R. Overview of experimental results for
centrifuge model No. 12. In: Proceedings of the international conference on
verification of numerical procedures for the analysis of soil liquefaction
problems, Davis, CA, 17–20 October, 1994. 2: p. 1619–1634.
[61] Ishibashi I, Zhang X. Unified dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios of
sand and clay. Soils and Foundations 1993;33(1):182–91.
[62] Troncoso JH. Failure risks of abandoned tailing dams. In: Proceedings of the
international symposium on safety and rehabilitation of tailing dams, ICOLD,
Paris, 1990. p. 82–89.