KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808

DOI 10.1007/s12205-024-2675-y www.springer.com/12205

Geotechnical Engineering

Effect of Strong Motion on Liquefaction-Induced Settlement of Shallow

Foundations using 3D Numerical Analysis
a b c
Jin-sun Lee , Sang-un Lee , and Kil-Wan Ko

a
Member, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Wonkwang University, Iksan 54538, Korea
b
Soosung Engineering, Seoul 05836, Korea
c
Member, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA

ARTICLE HISTORY ABSTRACT

Received 21 December 2023 Liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow foundations is the result of bearing capacity failure
Accepted 14 March 2024 in undrained conditions and sedimentary settlement during the post-liquefaction process. The
Published Online 24 May 2024 bearing capacity of a shallow foundation is highly dependent on the size and dimensions of its
footprint. In addition, the reduction in shear strength in liquefiable soil, a key parameter for
KEYWORDS estimating bearing capacity, depends on the excess pore water pressure generated during an
earthquake. This study aims to investigate the impact of earthquake motion on the extent of
Liquefaction liquefaction-induced settlement in shallow foundations. A parametric study was conducted by
Foundation settlement varying the input earthquake motions in a three-dimensional response history analysis to
Numerical modelling directly consider the interaction between the soil and superstructures. The numerical analysis
Intensity measures model constructed for the parametric study was rigorously calibrated using a reference
Centrifuge test dynamic centrifuge test in a prototype scale. The effects of the horizontal boundary and
drainage conditions in the numerical model were closely examined during calibration. The
parametric study results indicate that the intensity measures of an earthquake, which quantify
the energy associated with the number of reversals, exhibit a close correlation with the
resulting liquefaction-induced settlement as opposed to other conventional earthquake
motion parameters, such as peak acceleration, magnitude, and frequency.

1. Introduction primarily because most liquefaction-induced settlements arise

Subsurface liquefaction often induces settlement in shallow
foundations. Predicting liquefaction-induced settlement is more
complex than predicting settlement under static conditions. This
complexity arises from the strong dependence of pore water
pressure buildup from the soil’s resistance to liquefaction and
characteristics of earthquake motion. This settlement can be
attributed to two primary factors:1) Reduction in bearing capacity
resulting from pore water pressure development and 2) Sedimentary
consolidation of liquefied layers during the post-liquefaction
stage. Karamitros et al. (2013) introduced the mechanism of
liquefaction-induced settlement through three-dimensional response
history analysis. Their findings demonstrate that the predominant
cause of liquefaction-induced settlement is bearing capacity failure
during strong motion, with the settlement occurring during the
post-liquefaction stage being relatively insignificant. This is
from insufficient bearing capacities of shallow foundations. The
geometry of the foundation profoundly influences the margin for
bearing-capacity failure, whether in the form of a strip or a
rectangular footing. Adamidis and Madabhushi (2022) emphasized
that the geometry of the superstructure, which governs the
alterations in the bearing pressure of shallow foundations subjected
to strong motion, plays a pivotal role in earthquake-induced
settlement. In light of this perspective, a three-dimensional analysis
is preferred over a two-dimensional analysis for assessing the
mechanism of liquefaction-induced settlement because the geometry
of the foundation profoundly influences the margin for bearing
capacity failure. Numerous physical and numerical modeling
studies have been conducted to enhance our understanding of
liquefaction-induced settlement mechanisms in shallow foundations.
However, most previous studies were conducted under two-
dimensional plane strain conditions using equivalent modeling

CORRESPONDENCE Jin-sun Lee blueguy@wku.ac.kr Dept. of Civil Engineering, Wonkwang University, Iksan 54538, Korea
ⓒ 2024 Korean Society of Civil Engineers
2 J. Lee et al.
procedures because of the limitations inherent in the liquefaction
model and computational cost.
Dashti et al. (2010a, 2010b) conducted dynamic centrifuge
tests to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of liquefaction-
induced settlement. Building upon these test results, Dashti and
Bray (2013) performed numerical analyses using the UBCSAND
model (Beaty and Byrne, 2011) to replicate physical model tests
under two-dimensional plane strain conditions and assess the
capability of numerical simulations for liquefaction-induced
settlement estimation. Macedo and Bray (2018) investigated the
influence of superstructure characteristics, including building
width, bearing pressure, and subsoil conditions, using a nonlinear
response history analysis. They employed the PM4SAND model
(Boulanger and Ziotopoulou, 2017), which incorporates recent
advancements in liquefaction research and has widespread utility
in contemporary liquefaction-related studies in two-dimensional
space. Kassas et al. (2020) verified the procedure for estimating
liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow foundations using a
reliable dynamic centrifuge test for two-dimensional plane strain
conditions based on the PM4SAND model. They concluded that,
previous numerical analyses had been unable to adequately
account for the dissipation of excess pore water pressure. Most
previous research was conducted using nonlinear response history
analysis, considering changes in pore water pressure under seismic
excitation and employed sophisticated liquefaction constitutive
models. While prior research demonstrated reasonable alignment
with reference to physical test results, the simplification into a
two-dimensional plane strain configuration has been a limitation
of numerical models.
Three-dimensional numerical approaches have been explored
by Elgamal et al. (2009) and subsequently by other researchers.
Shahir and Pak (2010) calibrated their three-dimensional numerical
model using centrifuge test results. Recently, Hwang et al. (2023)
conducted a three-dimensional analysis using OpenSeesMP
(Mazzoni et al., 2006) computing in parallel with the PDMY02
model (Yang et al., 2003) to describe the mechanism of liquefaction
settlement in situations in which the seismic response of multiple
adjacent structures alters the bearing capacity of shallow foundations.
In addition to the dimensional problems in dealing with the
geometry of superstructures, the increase in excess pore water
pressure ratio during shaking is also an important factor governing
liquefaction-induced settlement. Kramer and Mitchell (2006)
were pioneers in highlighting the significance of the nonstationary
characteristics of strong motion within the context of the liquefaction
phenomenon. They emphasized the relevance of intensity measures
(IMs) in performance-based evaluations of historical seismic activity,
focusing on cumulative absolute motion velocities exceeding
5 cm/s cumulative absolute velocity (CAV5). Subsequently, Macedo
and Bray (2018) conducted two-dimensional numerical analyses
and suggested that intensity measures (IMs) encompassing
parameters such as cumulative absolute velocity, Arias intensity,
and spectral acceleration, play a pivotal role in estimating
liquefaction-induced settlement. They discussed several IMs that
exhibited the strongest correlation with liquefaction-induced
settlement.
This study investigates the effects of nonstationary strong motion
characteristics on the amount of liquefaction-induced settlement
in shallow foundations. To achieve this, three-dimensional
numerical analyses were performed to consider the dimensional
effects on the liquefaction-induced bearing capacity failure. First,
the numerical model was calibrated in a prototype scale using
data from a previous study conducted by Dashti et al. (2010b).
The P2PSAND model (Cheng et al., 2018), which operates within a
three-dimensional stress space, was used to capture changes in
pore water pressure during shaking. The numerical analysis
results are in excellent agreement with the benchmark physical
test results. Finally, parametric studies were conducted using the
validated numerical model considering various earthquake motions
with different IMs.
2. Dynamic Centrifuge Test
This study employed the dynamic centrifuge test results obtained
by Dashti et al. (2010b) to calibrate the numerical analysis model.
The dynamic centrifuge test aimed to elucidate the mechanism of
liquefaction-induced settlement and develop effective measures
to mitigate settlement-related hazards. The test results are publicly
available in the network for earthquake engineering simulation
(NEES) central database (https://datacenterhub.org/resources/
395). Dashti et al. (2010b) conducted four tests encompassing
diverse subsoil profiles and substructure types. Within this test
series, the T3-30 results were used in this study. This test yielded
dependable outcomes devoid of transducer malfunctions, rendering
it suitable for validating numerical models of settlement-induced
excess pore water pressure generation. Dashti et al. (2010b)
positioned three cuboid structures to simulate buildings with
shallow footings on loose, saturated sandy soil layers. These
structures varied in terms of their base dimensions and overall
weight. The ground model was reconstituted in a flexible shear
beam container filled successively with Monterey, Nevada, and
dense Nevada sand exhibiting relative densities of 85%, 30%,
and 90%, respectively, from top to bottom. Methyl cellulose was
mixed with water to simulate the seepage velocity of the fluid on
a prototype scale according to centrifugal acceleration, and
viscous fluid was used to saturate the sand layers. The test model
was subjected to the strong motion recorded at the 1995 Great
Hanshin Earthquake on Port Island, Kobe, Japan. The centrifugal
acceleration was 55 g. The experimental configurations are
presented in Table 1 and Fig. 1. The second layer of Nevada
sand, characterized by a relative density of 30%, was liquefied
Table 1. Centrifuge Testing Program (Dashti et al., 2010b)
Liquefiable layer Structural models
Dimension (B × L × H) / bearing pressure
Test ID Thickness/
Relative density A B C
6 × 9 × 5 m 12 × 18 × 5 m 6 × 9 × 9.2 m
T3-30 3m / 30%
80 kPa 80 kPa 130 kPa
 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 3

Fig. 1. Prototype Layout of Centrifuge Test T3-30 Model (reproduced from Dashti et al., 2010b)

during the strong input motion.
3. Verification of Numerical Model
3.1 Numerical Model
This study utilized the three-dimensional finite-difference analysis
software FLAC3D v9.0 (Itasca Consulting Group, 2023) to
simulate the reference dynamic centrifuge test and conduct the
parametric study. This software employs an explicit method and
direct time integration to capture the cyclic nonlinear behavior of
soil, incorporating pore water pressure changes under strong
motions. The numerical model was constructed to replicate the
experimental configurations in a prototype scale with dimensions of
90.8 m, 42.9 m, and 26.2 m for length, width, and height,
respectively. The buildings were modeled as elastic solids with
the same weight and dimensions as the physical model to reduce
the computational costs associated with the use of equivalent
structural elements. The flexible shear beam container was
simulated using two distinct numerical boundary conditions to
reflect the influence of the horizontal boundary on the numerical
analysis results. This is discussed in detail in the following
section. Within the soil layers, a 3 m thick layer of liquefiable
Nevada sand was simulated using a liquefaction model; the other
soil layers were represented by a nonlinear hysteretic damping

Fig. 2. Prototype Dimension of the Numerical Model and Subsoil Layers: (a) Free-Field Boundary Condition Model, (b) Tied Boundary Condition
Model
4 J. Lee et al.

model incorporating the Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria. The Table 2. Basic Engineering Parameters of Soil
nonlinear behavior of the non-liquefiable layer followed the Nevada sand
Monterey Nevada sand
mean curve proposed by Seed and Idriss (1970) for sandy soil. Properties (Liquefiable
sand (Dense Layer)
All the observed data from the dynamic centrifuge test, including Layer)
building settlements, acceleration records, and pore water pressure Relative density 85% 30% 90%
responses, were captured in the numerical analysis. The Specific gravity 2.59 2.63 2.65
constructed numerical model is shown in Fig. 2. Void ratio 0.56 0.67 0.54
Dry density (kg/m3) 1,660 1,580 1,720
3.2 Liquefaction Model Friction angle (cvo˚) 33 27 33
Over the past few years, numerous liquefaction models have Cohesion 0 0 0
been developed to account for undrained cyclic responses of Maximum shear modulus (Pa) *3.27 × 107 2.7 × 107 *7.12 × 107
saturated sands. In an earlier model (Byrne, 1991), generation of Poisson ratio 0.35 0.35 0.35
excess pore water pressure was expressed as a function of the Permeability (m/s)** 3.31 × 104 4.69 × 105 1.41 × 105
number of cycles, treating the mechanical response of sand as a *Estimated using Eq. (1)
distinct phenomenon. Advanced constitutive liquefaction models **Dashti and Bray (2013)
rooted in the critical state behavior of sand proposed by Bolton
(1986) have emerged since and gained widespread acceptance. test results or estimated using the primary parameters with typical
Recently, Boulanger and Ziotopoulou (2017) introduced a values given the initial stress condition of the numerical model. The
liquefaction model, PM4SAND, that encompasses post liquefaction basic engineering properties of the soil used in the dynamic
behavior. Based on classical elastoplastic theory, alternative centrifuge test are summarized in Table 2, as provided by Dashti and
perspectives have also been suggested: the nested yield surface- Bray (Dashti and Bray, 2013). Among the auxiliary parameters, this
based model (Yang et al., 2003) and the model employing study directly employs the maximum and minimum void ratios (emax
energy-based theories (Alavi and Gandomi, 2012), among and emin) provided by Dashti et al. (2010b), whereas the remaining
others. Each liquefaction model exhibits distinct merits and parameters are estimated based on relative density. To account for the
limitations concerning parameter selection, post liquefaction effect of the confining pressure on the shear modulus of non-
behavior, and applicability to three-dimensional modeling. liquefiable sandy soil, the maximum shear modulus was updated by
Incorporating a three-dimensional numerical model requires a considering the mean confining stress after static initialization using
liquefaction model that can operate effectively in the three- Eq. (1). The reference shear modulus (Gref) in Eq. (1) is derived from
dimensional space because defining stress reversal when the Eq. (2) (Dashti and Bray, 2013) and the SPT N value, (N1)60 is derived
soil experiences excitation forces in three directions is a challenging from the relative density using Eq. (3) (Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987).
task. This study adopted the P2PSAND model proposed by n
′
Gmax = G × P × ⎛ -----m-⎞ ,
ref
Cheng (2018), which is based on the bounding surface plasticity (1)
⎝P⎠
model SANISAND (Dafalias and Manzari, 2004), in 3D stress
space (Cheng and Detournay, 2021). The P2PSAND model was where m′ is the mean effective stress; P is atmospheric pressure;
implemented using the FLAC 3D software. n is an exponential constant (approximately 0.5 (Beaty and
Byrne, 2011)); and Gref is the reference shear modulus determined
3.3 Geotechnical Parameters using Eq. (2)
The accuracy of numerical analyses in geotechnical engineering ref
G = 325.5 × ( ( N1 )60 ) 0.333 , (2)
depends heavily on the engineering properties of the soil, which
serve as constitutive parameters in soil models. Dashti et al. 1⁄2
Dr = 15 ( N1 )60 , (3)
(2010b) conducted a dynamic centrifuge test and published the
experimental results and engineering parameters for the soil used where (N1)60 is the SPT N value, corrected for energy and
in the test. Dashti and Bray (2013) utilized the UBCSAND overburden pressure.
model under plane-strain conditions for their numerical analyses. The P2PSAND model adjusts the maximum shear modulus
There are distinctions in the model parameters between the of the liquefiable layers using an effective confining pressure
liquefaction models UBCSAND and P2PSAND used in this (Cheng, 2018). As a result, a contour of the bulk modulus of the
study, stemming from the different approaches that characterize numerical soil model, which takes into account the confining
the state of the sandy soil in the stress space and along the stress pressure before shaking, is presented in Fig. 3.
path. In addition to the common parameters used in both models, The internal friction angle at constant volume (cv) is also
the remaining parameters are estimated based on geotechnical derived from the SPT (N1)60 value using Eqs. (4) and (5).
evidence. The P2PSAND model requires two types of model
( N1 )60 ( N1 )60 – 15
parameters: primary and auxiliary. The primary parameters are cv = f – -------------
- = max 0, ------------------------ ,
10 5
estimated based on the relative density of the soil, whereas the
(Beaty and Byrne, 2011) (4)
auxiliary parameters can be determined either directly from the

Fig. 3. Bulk Modulus Contour before Shaking
where f is the peak friction angle and is calculated as proposed
by Dunham (1954)
f = 12 × ( N1 )60 + 20 . (5)
While Ayoubi and Pak (2017) suggested that permeability of
liquefiable sand changes during liquefaction process, the
permeability of liquefiable layer considered to be constant in this
study due to a lack of available experimental data. Therefore, the
permeability, a key factor in drained analysis, was provided by
Dashti and Bray (2013) and is listed in Table 2. This study also
considers the effects of the drainage conditions during the
calibration process. The groundwater was modeled with a bulk
modulus of 2 × 109 Pa. Additionally, the tensile strength of water
was assigned an arbitrarily high value of 1 × 109 Pa, to demonstrate
the non-expandable behavior of saturated soil under undrained
conditions.
Figure 4 presents the calibration results of the P2PSAND
model behavior for the loose Nevada sand used in the physical
modeling test at a relative density of 30% and a confining pressure
of 66 kPa, which corresponds to the state of the liquefiable soil at
the center layer. Fig. 5 compares the cyclic stress ratio between
the numerical cyclic simple shear test results of the liquefaction
Fig. 4. P2PSAND Predicted Response of Nevada Sand (Dr = 30) by a Cyclic Simple Shear Test: Stress Path; Shear Stress-Shear Strain Relationship;
Excess Pore Water Pressure Ratio-Shear Strain Relationship; Excess Pore Water Pressure Ratio Time-History
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 5
Fig. 5. Comparison of CSR between P2PSAND Model and Test Data
from Arulmoli et al. (1992)
model used in this study with those of the reference laboratory
test published by Arulmoli et al. (1992). A liquefaction triggering
criterion for a single-amplitude shear strain of 3% was used to
determine the cyclic stress ratio of the P2PSAND model. As
the test conditions between the reference laboratory test and the
numerical model are not identical, the liquefaction model
performance results presented in Figs. 4 and 5 demonstrate the
capability to capture the liquefaction of loose Nevada sand under
strong motion as well as subsequent phenomena, such as bearing
capacity failure, which leads to liquefaction-induced settlement.
3.4 Input Motion and Boundary Conditions
Dashti et al. (2010b) conducted a dynamic centrifuge test by
using acceleration records from the 1995 Great Hanshin earthquake.
6 J. Lee et al.
The test results and measured acceleration signal at the bottom of
the test box are publicly available in the NEES database. This
study used the “Large Port Island” record for test number T3-30
to input the motion parameters for numerical analyses. This input
was applied at the bottom of the numerical model as shear stress,
considering a compliant base condition to help reduce numerical
errors during the analysis (Mejia and Dawson, 2006). Dashti et
al. (2010b) conducted dynamic centrifuge tests using a flexible
shear-beam container box. The container box had a structure
similar to that of the equivalent shear beam box but was designed
to account for the behavior of the soil not just in terms of the
initial fundamental frequency but also to lower the natural
frequency of the soil undergoing large strains under strong excitation.
This design is suitable for testing liquefiable soil layers. However,
the reference centrifuge test model included both liquefiable and
non-liquefiable layers. Thus, the flexible shear-beam container
box is not ideal for addressing this issue. In fact, none of the
available soil containers can perfectly replicate the stress-strain
field of real soil strata under seismic conditions (Esmaeilpour et
al., 2023).
In addition to physical model testing, the modeling of the
horizontal boundary conditions representing an infinite soil layer
or soil containers is another challenge in numerical analysis. To
address this challenge, two types of numerical horizontal boundary
conditions were employed in this study to determine suitable
representations of the flexible shear beam container, as shown in
Fig. 2. The first is the free-field element, originally proposed by
Cundall et al. (1980) and implemented in the FLAC 3D software.
The free-field element emulates the mechanical behavior of the
adjacent soil model along with an attached viscous dashpot
designed to absorb horizontally reflected waves. This approach
is useful for representing infinite horizontal soil layers; however,
it does not exactly match the seismic response of a flexible shear
beam container. Another approach involves the use of tied boundary
conditions, which impose constraints between two opposite-
side elements to ensure compatibility in terms of displacement.
This numerical boundary condition is identical to that of the
laminar box employed in the physical liquefaction tests and is
consistent with the approach adopted by Dashti and Bray (2013).
In this study, an additional modification of the tied boundary
condition was implemented, wherein the stiffness of both lateral
elements is modeled using an elastic material with properties
identical to those of the adjacent soils. This modification closely
simulates the behavior of flexible shear beams. The analysis
results of both horizontal boundary conditions were compared
with the experimental data in detail and are presented in the next
section.
4. Validation of the Numerical Analysis
The numerical analysis results were validated for building settlement,
considering the excess pore-water pressure ratio beneath the
buildings using Eq. (6). All the numerical analysis results were
recorded at the same transducer position as that in the reference
test.
Δu
Ru = -----′- , (6)
m
where Δu denotes excess pore water pressure, and ′m is the
mean effective stress under static conditions.
4.1 Mechanism of Liquefaction-Induced Settlement
Liquefaction-induced settlement is predominantly caused by
bearing capacity failures when the bearing pressure exceeds the
capacity, thereby decreasing according to the pore water pressure
buildup during liquefaction. This study comprehensively reviews
this mechanism by leveraging detailed insights from numerical
analysis results. To simulate liquefaction-induced problems,
numerical analyses must incorporate changes in pore water pressure
and the resulting mechanical soil response, as alterations in pore
water pressure leads to seepage. However, the drainage conditions
under which the soil is liquefied remain unclear. Thus, the
groundwater flow conditions were also reviewed for the drained
and undrained conditions, along with the horizontal boundary
conditions.
The distribution of the maximum excess pore water pressure
ratio during the analysis and final deformed shapes, shear strain
increments, and displacement vectors are shown in Fig. 6. It is
evident from the observations that liquefaction occurred extensively
within the liquefiable layers and extended to the upper strata of
the dense Nevada sandy layer under drained conditions. Notably,
differences stemming from the horizontal boundary conditions
are negligible. The shear strain increment and displacement vectors
clearly reveal plastic deformation, which triggers liquefaction-
induced settlement arising from bearing capacity failure leading
to punching failure. Under free-field boundary conditions, lateral
spreading toward the horizontal boundaries occurred within the
liquefied layers. This phenomenon is attributed to volume change
allowances facilitated by this boundary type. Such volume changes
are not observed in tied boundary conditions and flexible shear
beams in physical tests.
4.2 Excess Pore Water Pressure
A detailed comparison between the reference test and numerical
analysis is presented in Fig. 7 which depicts the excess pore
water pressure ratio and settlement histories. The settlements of
the buildings were recorded at each corner of the buildings using
an LVDT, and the pore water pressures were recorded beneath
the buildings. The peak increment and build-up pattern of excess
pore water pressure ratio are reasonably similar between the
reference physical test and numerical analyses. However, the
numerical analyses fail to precisely capture the dissipation patterns
of excess pore water pressure. This discrepancy may be attributed to
the inadequate representation of the redistribution of excess pore
water pressure in the liquefaction model, which is frequently
observed in physical tests (Adamidis and Madabhushi, 2018;
Kassas et al., 2021). Excess pore water pressure accumulates
rapidly during the initial and subsequent strong tremors, ultimately

Fig. 6. The Maximum Excess Pore Water Pressure Contour, Shear Stain Increment and Displacement Vector (Deformation shape is magnified in 2
times): (a) Free-Field Boundary with Drained Condition, (b) Free-Field Boundary with Undrained Condition, (c) Tied Boundary with
Drained Condition, (d) Tied Boundary with Undrained Condition
leading to bearing capacity failure of the shallow foundation. As
discussed in the preceding section, excess pore water pressure
build-up patterns may depend on drainage conditions. The
maximum increase in excess pore water pressure ratio is more
similar to the results of the numerical analyses for undrained
conditions than drained ones, which is in line with the reference
physical test results. However, regarding the dissipation pattern,
the drained condition yields more reasonable outcomes than the
undrained condition. This closely aligns with the observations
made by Kassas et al. (2020), suggesting that current numerical
analysis techniques cannot comprehensively capture the intricate
patterns associated with the dissipation of excess pore water
pressure during liquefaction.
The drainage conditions in the numerical model are controlled
by allowing the seepage of pore water, with the permeability
values listed in Table 2. Due to this seepage process, the dissipation
of excess pore water pressure is facilitated in drained conditions.
However, the accumulation of excess pore water pressure can
occur even in drained conditions if all the liquefiable layers
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 7
exhibit contractive behavior, leading to a buildup of excess pore
water pressure. At this stage, the dissipation of excess pore water
pressure through the seepage process is not possible, as there is
no pathway for flow out to the adjacent soil. Moreover, changes
in the volume of the liquefiable layer may result in a decrease in
pore water pressure without necessitating seepage in undrained
conditions. Such variations in excess pore water pressure are
depicted in Fig. 7(d).
4.3 Liquefaction-Induced Settlement
Although the overall pattern of the liquefaction-induced settlement
accumulation remained consistent, the amount of settlement and
tilting behavior varied depending on the analysis conditions.
Notably, the free-field boundary condition exhibits a larger
liquefaction-induced settlement than the tied-boundary condition.
This divergence can be attributed to the potential of horizontal
residual displacements toward the boundaries inducing vertical
settlement, even without alterations in the total volume. This
phenomenon is apparent even for undrained conditions. The
8 J. Lee et al.

Fig. 7. Comparison of Settlement and Excess Pore Water Pressure Build Up Patterns: (a) Free-Field Boundary with Drained Condition, (b) Free-
Field Boundary with Undrained Condition, (c) Tied Boundary with Drained Condition, (d) Tied Boundary with Undrained Condition

Fig. 7. (continued)
disparities in settlement due to drainage conditions are generally
insignificant, except in the case of BLDG_C. More liquefaction-
induced settlement is observed in the drained analysis than in the
undrained analysis, particularly for BLDG_C. Thus, it is inferred
that an overall residual displacement occurs in the direction of
the right side, which is adjacent to BLDG_C. Consequently, the
vertical settlement compensates for the discharged volume, as a
sizable region near the boundary experiences liquefaction and is
discharged towards the right side. The differences in settlement
accumulation at each corner correspond to the tilting of the
buildings. BLDG_B, which is characterized by the largest base-
contacting area and a low center of gravity, exhibited minimal
tilting behavior in the physical tests, contrary to numerical
simulations results revealing a tilt for BLDG_B. The rocking
effect on liquefaction-induced settlement, as discussed by Adamidis
and Madabhushi (2022), does not manifest in the physical test
outcomes but is observed in the numerical analysis when reviewing
the case of BLDG_C. These differences may arise from the
simplified superstructures used in numerical modeling. To increase
computational efficiency, the superstructures were modeled as
elastic solids. However, the physical test model exhibited a different
mode of dynamic response possibly because it is composed of
plates, even though the two structural models have identical
weights and centers of gravity.
After thoroughly reviewing the analysis results encompassing
various conditions, it was deduced that the physical model test
within finite boundaries cannot precisely replicate the actual
liquefaction-induced settlement in the field. The liquefaction-
induced settlement observed in both the physical tests and
numerical analyses comprise settlements induced by bearing
capacity failure as well as lateral spreading. However, the horizontal
boundary conditions influence the extent of lateral spreading.
Despite certain limitations in the validation of the numerical
analyses, the model employed in this study is valuable for
investigating the effects of nonstationary earthquake motion on
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 9
the liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow foundations.
Video clips of the graphs in Fig. 7, representing free-field boundary
conditions in the drained analysis, are presented as supplementary
material.
Supplementary Material - Video
Deformed shape, Excess pore water pressure ratio contour with Set-
tlement of structures, Excess pore water pressure ratio time histories
4.4 Additional Findings in Validation
Initially, a tied boundary with a fundamental natural period
identical to that of the model soil layers was considered in the
numerical analysis. The fundamental natural period of the model
soil layers during liquefaction was estimated from free-field
acceleration records in the reference physical test. Subsequently,
the shear wave velocity corresponding to the fundamental period
was used to compute the shear modulus of the lateral elastic
element adjacent to the fixed boundary. This process parallels the
procedure used in designing a flexible shear beam. However, this
approach yields unrealistic responses. Therefore, the lateral elastic
elements were designed to match the initial modulus of the
adjacent soil. Second, the direction of the excitation load was
considered because the NEES database does not specify the
loading direction as right or left, in indicating the positive
acceleration motion. Consequently, the impact of the loading
direction is insignificant. However, residual lateral spreading
occurs in the opposite direction. Obtaining accurate acceleration
histories of fully liquefied soil poses a significant challenge due
to the difficulty in maintaining the reference position and direction
of the acceleration transducers during physical tests. As a result,
there are only a few acceleration records that can be compared
between the centrifuge test and numerical analysis. Fig. 8 presents a
comparison of one of the highest-quality acceleration records
obtained from the centrifuge test. The acceleration records from
the numerical analysis align well with those from the centrifuge
10 J. Lee et al.

Table 3. Strong Motions Used in the Study

Epicenter
No. Event Country Mw Date
distance (Km)
1 Borah Peak U.S.A. 6.9 1983.10.28 93.34
2 Crete_Greece Greece 6.5 2013.10.12 55.7
3 Greece Greece 6.6 1995.05.13 19
4 Gyeongju Korea 5.8 2016.09.13 5.6
5 Kobe Japan 6.7 1995.01.16 0.9
6 Loma prieta U.S.A. 6.9 1989.10.18 28.5
7 Nahanni Canada 6.9 1985.12.23 96
8 Northridge U.S.A. 6.7 1994.01.17 20.2
9 Pohang Korea 5.4 2017.11.15 43.5
10 Romania Romania 6.9 1990.05.30 79.4
11 San Fernando U.S.A. 6.6 1971.02.09 27.8

Fig. 8. Comparison of the Acceleration Records: (a) Comparison of

the Acceleration Records at Liquefiable Layer Beneath the
BLDG_B, (b) Comparison of the Acceleration Records at Sense
Nevada Sand Layer Beneath the BLDG_B
test. This alignment is more pronounced for non-liquefiable layers
than for liquefiable layers, owing to the challenges associated
with maintaining a consistent measurement reference.
5. Effect of Strong Motion Characteristics on
Liquefaction-Induced Settlement
This paper presents the parametric studies conducted to investigate
the effect of intensity measures, that is IMs, of strong motions on
the amount of liquefaction-induced settlement. The parametric
study utilized the verified numerical model discussed in the
previous section, in particular, the model with a free-field boundary
in undrained condition. The input motions were modified to
examine the impact of the IMs. To isolate the effect of the IMs,
the input motion histories were spectrally matched using a
wavelet to minimize the influence of other factors such as frequency
content and peak acceleration. The 11 strong-motion records
listed in Table 3 were employed in this study. These selected
motions range in magnitude from 5.8 to 6.9, and the events can
be classified as inter- or intra-plate earthquakes. The selected
motions were matched with the Korean Standard Seismic Design
Spectrum (MOLIT, 2018) using the wavelet method proposed by
Atic and Abrahamson (2010). The results are presented in Fig. 9.
The effects of ten IMs on liquefaction-induced settlement were
investigated along with two earthquake motion characteristics:
mean period and duration. The parameters of the strong motion
used in this study are listed in Table 4. The relationship between
the intensity measures, motion characteristics, and final liquefaction-
induced settlement is depicted in Fig. 10. Where the purple
triangle, and the red and green circles represent the results for
BLDG_A, BLDG_B, and BLDG_C, respectively. The numbers
in the legend correspond to the strong motions listed in Table 4
The mean period of the motions is within the range of about 0.37
to 0.6 s, when spectrally matched to the target spectrum. Despite
similar mean periods and peak accelerations, the resulting
liquefaction-induced settlements exhibit considerable variation,
indicating that non-stationary strong motion characteristics
significantly affect liquefaction-induced settlement. The correlation
between liquefaction-induced settlement and Intensity Measures
(IMs) is quantitatively analyzed by examining the R² value in
regression analysis for a linear equation, along with the 95%
confidence interval. The R² values for the regression results for
each IM and the 95% confidence intervals are depicted in Fig. 10.
An R² value close to 1.0 and narrow confidence interval ranges
imply a strong correlation between the two parameters represented
on the x and y axes.
As a result, among the IMs employed, Arias intensity, CAVs,
and destructiveness potential factor exhibit the most significant
relationship with the total amount of liquefaction-induced settlement.
These findings are consistent with those of Kramer and Michell
(2006) and Macedo and Bray (2018), who reported that CAV
intensity is the dominant factor for liquefaction and liquefaction-
induced settlement. Consequently, it can be concluded that
conventional earthquake motion parameters, such as peak
acceleration, magnitude, and duration, which are commonly
used to assess liquefaction hazard estimation, do not significantly
influence liquefaction-induced settlement, as would be expected.
Considering the liquefaction mechanism, it is crucial to consider
the total accumulated shear strain that displaces soil grains and
reduces voids to evaluate the liquefaction phenomenon. Based
on the numerical analysis and centrifuge test results, it is
observed that the primary component of liquefaction settlement
is attributed to bearing punching failure. This phenomenon
arises from a reduction in bearing capacity during liquefaction.
The settlement process persists until a limit equilibrium state is
established or the bearing capacity is reinstated. Consequently, for a
precise estimation of liquefaction-induced settlement, earthquake
intensity measures must incorporate the total energy of the
seismic motion and its effective duration, which govern
liquefaction initiation.
 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 11

Table 4. Intensity Measures and Earthquake Motion Parameters Used in This Study
No. Intensity measure parameter Definition Reference
 t
1 Arias intensity (m/s) Ia = ------ ∫ a ( t ) 2 dt Arias (1970)
2g 0
3⁄2
2 Characteristic intensity (m1.5/s2.5) Ic = ( arms ) ttot Park et al. (1987)
where, arms is rms acceleration and ttot is strong motion duration
t
3 Cumulative absolute velocity (cm/s) CAV = ∫ a ( t ) dt Reed and Kassawara (1990)
0
t
CAV5 = ∫ 〈 X〉 a ( t ) dt
0
4 CAV5 (cm/s) 2 Kramer and Mitchell (2006)
⎧ 0 for a ( t ) < 5 cm ⁄ s
where, 〈 X〉 = ⎨
2
⎩ 1 for a ( t ) ≥ 5 cm ⁄ s
N i
CAVdp = ∑ ⎛ H ( PGAi – 0.025 ) ∫ a ( t ) dt⎞
⎝ i–1 ⎠
i=1
5 CAVdp (cm/s) Campbell and Bozorgnia (2011)
⎧ 0 for H ( X ) < 0
Where, H ( X ) = ⎨
⎩ 1 for H ( X ) ≥ 0
I
PD = ---a-2
6 Destructive potential factor (m/s) v0 Araya and Saragoni (1984)
where v0 is number of zero crossings in velocity history
2.5
HI = ∫ PSV (  = 0.05, T ) dt
7 Housner intensity (m) 0.1 Housner (1952)
where, PSV is Pseudo Spectral Velocity
2
∑ C i ⁄ f-i
Tm = ----------------
2
8 Mean period (s) ∑C i Rathje et al. (1998)

where Ci is Fourier amplitude and fi is frequencies 0.25 − 20 Hz

Time interval over which a proportion of Arias intensity is
9 Significant duration (s) -
accumulated (between 5 and 95).
t 2
10 Specific energy density (cm2/s) SED = ∫ [ v ( t ) ] dt -
0

reduction in bearing capacity. To comprehend this mechanism,

Fig. 9. Spectral Matching Results of the Input Motions
6. Conclusions
Liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow foundations can be
initiated by punching failure, resulting from increased excess
pore water pressure during the liquefaction process causing a
nonlinear response history analyses were conducted in three-
dimensional space and calibrated against the dynamic centrifuge test
results. Calibration was performed by varying the horizontal
boundary and drainage conditions in the numerical analysis.
The calibration results demonstrated that punching failure
resulting from bearing capacity reduction is the main cause of
liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow foundations. The
findings obtained through the calibration process indicate that
the horizontal boundary and drainage conditions affect the final
amount of liquefaction-induced settlement. However, in the
physical tests and numerical analyses, none of the horizontal
boundary conditions could precisely replicate the real phenomena.
Additionally, it is apparent that the current numerical liquefaction
model and analysis scheme cannot accurately capture the
intricate seepage and sedimentation processes during liquefaction.
Despite certain limitations in the calibration of the numerical
analyses, the model employed in this study is valuable for
conducting parametric studies that assess the factors influencing
12 J. Lee et al.

liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow foundations. The

findings of the parametric study underscore that the IMs
representing both the duration and total energy of strong
motion are the most influential factors in liquefaction-induced
settlement. Thus, the recommendation is to prioritize these
IMs that can explain both the total energy of earthquake
motion and the number of cycles over conventional earthquake
motion parameters, such as peak acceleration and frequency
content, in assessing liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow
foundations.

Acknowledgments

This paper was supported by Wonkwang University in 2022

ORCID

Jin-sun Lee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1814-4497

Sang-un Lee https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9128-9328
Kil-Wan Ko https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5916-4227

Fig. 10. Liquefaction Induced Settlement with the Intensity Measures
(IMs)
References
Adamidis O, Madabhushi SPG (2018) Experimental investigation of
drainage during earthquake-induced liquefaction. Géotechnique 68(8):
655-665, DOI: 10.1680/jgeot.16.P.090
Adamidis O, Madabhushi SPG (2022) Rocking response of structures
with shallow foundations on thin liquefiable layers. Géotechnique
72(2):127-145, DOI: 10.1680/jgeot.19.P.077
Alavi AH, Gandomi AH (2012) Energy-based numerical models for
assessment of soil liquefaction. Geoscience Frontiers 3(4):541-555,
DOI: 10.1016/j.gsf.2011.12.008
Araya R, Saragoni GR (1984) Earthquake accelerogram destructiveness
potential factor. 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
SanFrancisco, U.S.A, 835-842, https://www.nicee.org/wcee/search8.php
Arias A (1970) Measure of earthquake intensity. Hansen RJ (ed) Seismic
design for nuclear power plants. MIT press, Cambridge MA, 438-483
Arulmoli K, Muraleetharan KK, Hossain MM, Fruth LS (1992) VELACS:
Verification of liquefaction analysis by centrifuge studies, Laboratory
Testing Program. Soil data Report, 90-0562
Atik LA, Abrahamson N (2010) An improved method for nonstationary
spectral matching. Earthquake Spectra 26(3):601-617, DOI: 10.1193/
1.3459159
Ayoubi P, Pak A (2017) Liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow
foundations on two-layered subsoil strata. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering (94):35-46, DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.01.004
Beaty MH, Byrne PM (2011) UBCSAND constitutive model: Version
904aR. Documentation Report: UBCSAND constitutive model on
Itasca UDM web site, https://www.itascacg.com/software/udm-library/
ubcsand
Bolton MD (1986) The strength and dilatancy of sands. Géotechnique
36(1):65-78, DOI: 10.1680/geot.1986.36.1.65
Boulanger RW, Ziotopoulou K (2017) PM4SAND (VERSION 3.1): A
sand plasticity model for earthquake engineering applications. Dept.
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California
Davis, Report No. UCD/CGM-17/01, https://www.itascacg.com/
software/udm-library/pm4sand
Byrne PM (1991) A cyclic shear-volume coupling and pore-pressure

model for sand. Proceedings of Second International Conference on
Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri 1(24):47-55
Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2011) Prediction equations for the
standardized version of cumulative absolute velocity as adapted for
use in the shutdown of U.S. nuclear power plants. Nuclear Engineering
and Design 241(7):2558-2569, DOI: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.04.
020
Cheng Z (2018) A practical 3D bounding surface plastic sand model for
geotechnical earthquake engineering application. Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V 37-47, DOI: 10.1061/
9780784481479.004.
Cheng Z, Detournay C (2021) Formulation, validation and application
of a practice-oriented two-surface plasticity sand model. Computers
and Geotechnics (132):2-24, DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103984
Cundall PA, Hansteen H, Lacasse S, Seines PB (1980) NESSI-Soil structure
interaction program for dynamic and static problems. Report 51508-9
Dafalias YF, Manzari MT (2004) Simple plasticity sand model accounting
for fabric change effects. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130(6),
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2004)130:6(622)
Dashti S, Bray JD, Pestana JM, Riemer MR, Wilson D (2010a) Centrifuge
testing to evaluate and mitigate liquefaction-induced building settlement
mechanisms. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 136(7):918-929, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.
0000306
Dashti S, Bray JD (2013) Numerical simulation of building response on
liquefiable sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 139(8):1235-1249, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-
5606.0000853
Dashti S, Bray JD, Pestana JM, Riemer MR, Wilson D (2010b) Mechanisms
of seismically-induced settlement of buildings with shallow foundations
on liquefiable soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 136(1):151-164, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.
0000179
Dunham JW (1954) Pile foundation for buildings. Proc. ASCE, Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division 80(385)
Elgamal A, Lu J, Yang Z (2009) Liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow
foundations and remediation: 3d numerical simulation. Journal of
Earthquake Engineering 9:17-45, DOI: 10.1080/13632460509350578
Esmaeilpour P, Mamazizi A, Madabhushi GSP (2023) An overview of
the model container types in physical modeling of geotechnical
problems. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 168:107827,
DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.107827
Housner GW (1952) Intensity of ground motion during strong earthquakes.
California Institute of Technology, https://resolver.caltech.edu/
CaltechEERL:1952.EERL.1952.001
Hwang YW, Dashti S, Tiznado JC (2023) Seismic performance of mat-
founded building clusters on liquefiable soils treated with ground
densification. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 169:107861,
DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.107861
Itasca Consulting Group (2023) computer software FLAC3D Version
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 13
9.0, https://www.Itascacg.com/software/FLAC3D
Karamitros DK, Bouckovalas GD, Chaloulos YK, Andrianopoulos KI
(2013) Numerical analysis of liquefaction-induced bearing capacity
degradation of shallow foundations on a two-layered soil profile.
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 44:90-101, DOI: 10.1016/
j.soildyn.2012.07.028
Kassas K, Adamidis O, Anastasopoulos I (2021) Shallow strip foundations
subjected to earthquake-induced soil liquefaction: Validation,
modelling uncertainties, and boundary effects. Soil Dynamic and
Earthquake Engineering 147:106719, DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.
106719
Kassas K, Adamidis O, Gerolymos N, Ansatasopoilos I (2020) Numerical
modeling of a structure with shallow strip foundation during earthquake-
induced liquefaction. Géotechnique 71(12):1099-1113, DOI: 10.1680/
jgeot.19.P.277
Kramer SL, Mitchell RA (2006) Ground motion intensity measures for
liquefaction hazard evaluation. Earthquake Spectra 22(2):413-438,
DOI: 10.1193/1.2194970
Macedo J, Bray JD (2018) Key trends in liquefaction-induced building
settlement. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 144(11), DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001951
Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott M, Fenves G (2006) Open system for
earthquake engineering simulation user command-language. Berkeley,
CA: Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulations
Mejia LH, Dawson EM (2006) Earthquake deconvolution for FLAC.
Proceedings of 4th international FLAC symposium on numerical
modelling in geomechanics, 04-10, ISBN 0-9767577-0-2
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation (MOLIT) (2018)
General Seismic Design, KDS 17 10 00, https://www.kcsc.re.kr
Park YJ, Ang AHS, Wen YK (1987) Damage-limiting seismic design of
buildings. Earthquake Spectra 3(1):1-26, DOI: 10.1193/1.1585416
Rathje EM, Abrahamson NA, Bray JD (1998) Simplified frequency
content estimates of earthquake ground motions. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 124(2):150-159,
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:2(150)
Reed JW, Kassawara RP (1990) A criterion for determining exceedance
of the operating basis earthquake. Nuclear Engineering and Design
123(2-3):387-396, DOI: 10.1016/0029-5493(90)90259-Z
Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic
response analyses. EERC 70-10, UC Berkeley, 3A
Shahir H, Pak A (2010) Estimating liquefaction-induced settlement
of shallow foundations by numerical approach. Computers and
Geotechnics 37:267-279, DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.10.001
Tokimatsu K, Seed HB (1987) Evaluation of settlements in sands due to
earthquake shaking. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 113(8):861-878, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)
113:8(861)
Yang Z, Elgamal A, Parra E (2003) Computational model for cyclic
mobility and associated shear deformation. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 129(12):1119-1127, DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:12(1119)