Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 211–223

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

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

Employing a variable permeability model in numerical simulation

of saturated sand behavior under earthquake loading
H. Shahir a,⇑, B. Mohammadi-Haji a, A. Ghassemi b
a
Kharazmi University, P.O. Box 31979-37551, Tehran, Iran
b
Qazvin Islamic Azad University, P.O. Box 34185-1416, Qazvin, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Despite advances in the numerical analysis of saturated sand behavior under earthquake loading, accu-
Received 25 February 2013 rate prediction of liquefaction-related phenomena by numerical simulation remains a challenge. Varia-
Received in revised form 3 August 2013 tion of the coefficient of permeability is a key issue which has not obtained due attention in most
Accepted 16 September 2013
previous modeling. In this study, a revised form of a recently proposed variable permeability function
Available online 6 October 2013
was implemented in a fully coupled dynamic model adopting modern two-surface plasticity constitutive
law to evaluate the effects of permeability variations on the results of numerical modeling. The variable
Keywords:
permeability model is comprised of a simple function relating the permeability coefficient of soil mass to
Liquefaction
Coupled analysis
the excess pore water ratio. In this study, the constants of the variable permeability function were
Permeability attained based mainly on theoretical evidence and experimental observation. Well-documented centri-
Settlement fuge experiments were examined to evaluate how well the proposed model captures the main features
of soil response to earthquake loading. The results indicate that the proposed function greatly enhanced
the capability of numerical modeling to predict the behavior of saturated sand under cyclic loading. Par-
ticularly, the variable permeability model with proposed constants significantly improved the amount of
liquefaction-induced settlement predicted by numerical modeling.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction used centrifuge geotechnical modeling tests to experimentally

Liquefaction is an important earthquake-induced phenomena
that may result in significant damage to engineered structures
such as quay walls, bridges, tunnels, and lifeline facilities. Liquefac-
tion is generally attributed to the loss of strength of saturated loose
sandy deposits as a consequence of the simultaneous generation of
excess pore water pressure and reduction of effective stress
through the liquefied layers subjected to seismic excitation.
Despite attempts to clarify the mechanisms involved [1–4], a com-
prehensive theory describing the overall aspects of liquefaction
and post-liquefaction behavior of sandy soils has not yet been
developed.
Accurate prediction of land subsidence in liquefied layers is
important to many civil engineering applications. In recent
decades, research has focused on factors affecting settlement of
saturated sandy layers subjected to earthquake loading using dif-
ferent methodologies, including laboratory experiments and
numerical simulations. For example, Jafarzadeh and Yanagisawa
[5] used a small-scale shaking table and Dobry and Taboada [6]
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: shahir@khu.ac.ir (H. Shahir), bahareh.mohammadi.ac@gmail.
com (B. Mohammadi-Haji), a_ghassemi@qiau.ac.ir (A. Ghassemi).
investigate the behavior of saturated sand under cyclic loading.
Data from physical models, especially from centrifuge tests, gener-
ally provide a credible basis for calibration of model constants in
numerical simulations. The results of some of these experiments
were used in the current study to validate the numerical model.
Generally, numerical simulation of liquefaction-induced settle-
ment is difficult. Some researchers have not reported the settle-
ment obtained by their numerical models [7,8] and other models
gave lower settlement values compared to what occurred under
real conditions [9]. The common weakness of the numerical mod-
els in simulating the surface settlement of liquefied soils can be
mainly attributed to the superimposed effects of improper consti-
tutive law for saturated sandy soils under seismic loading and/or
unrealistic modeling of water discharge from the soil mass during
earthquake loading, which is responsible for the reduction of satu-
rated mass volume.
Among the remarkable constitutive models developed to
simulate the response of sandy soils subjected to cyclic loading,
multi-surface plasticity and bounding surface plasticity models
have been successfully employed to numerically model liquefac-
tion-related phenomena [10–12]. In this study, a version of the
bounding surface plasticity model modified by Dafalias and
Manzari [13] was applied for numerical analysis. Bounding surface

0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2013.09.007
212 H. Shahir et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 211–223

Nomenclature

A0 dilatancy Mb bounding stress ratio

Ad function of fabric change Md dilatancy stress ratio
B strain-displacement matrix nb plastic modulus parameter
b stress vector nd dilatancy parameter
c critical state parameter nb positive material constant
ch plastic modulus parameter nd positive material constant
cz fabric dilatancy parameter P pore pressure vector
D dilatancy coefficient p mean effective stress
d stress vector Pc existing confining stress
e current void ratio Q discrete gradient operator coupling the motion and flow
e0 critical state constant equations
ec critical void ratio ru excess pore pressure ratio
ff fluid property factor S compressibility matrix
fs fluid property factor S0 specific surface
fv fluid property factor T tortuosity
f(p) vector in u–p formulation U solid displacement
f(s) vector in u–p formulation Zmax fabric dilatancy parameter
G elastic shear modulus a constant
G0 model parameter b1 constant
H permeability matrix b2 constant
h positive scalar-valued function cf unit weight of fluid
h0 plastic modulus parameter n critical state constant
k hydraulic conductivity kc critical state constant
K0 pore shape factor lf fluid viscosity
kb build up phase coefficient of permeability g stress ratio
kd dissipation phase coefficient of permeability m poisson’s ratio
ki initial coefficient of permeability r0 effective stress tensor
kl liquefaction state coefficient of permeability w state parameter
Kp plastic modulus
M mass matrix
m yield surface parameter

models, such as that proposed by Dafalias and Manzari, use the
same set of model parameters to simulate soil behavior for a range
of densities and confining pressures using a unified plasticity
framework based on critical state concepts. This model has shown
satisfactory results for simulating the monotonic and cyclic behav-
ior of dry and saturated sands, especially to capture the volumetric
response of soil responsible for surface settlement [12,14,15]. The
numerical efficiency of the model is good because only the yield
surface must be updated at each increment in response to kine-
matic and isotropic hardening [12].
Conventional belief about the behavior of undrained saturated
sands during earthquake loading contradicts reported observations
indicating a gradual increase of settlement from initial stages of
loading [16–18]. In other words, significant water drainage from
the soil mass takes place during shaking while excess pore water
is being generated. Consequently, a considerable amount of settle-
ment occurs during the shaking. This settlement is caused by high
values of outward water flux from the soil mass caused by the in-
crease of permeability in the soil while approaching liquefaction
[5,19–21]. After shaking ends, the soil continues to settle at a
decreasing rate from drainage caused by the hydraulic gradient
remaining in the soil mass. Neglecting variations in the coefficient
of permeability is a main reason for the under-prediction of settle-
ment in most previous numerical models. Microscopic changes in
the characteristics of saturated pores between sand grains are
responsible for the variation of soil permeability. A detailed
description of the changes in permeability in saturated sand under
cyclic loading will be presented later in this paper.
Some researchers account for the variation in permeability by
assuming a constant increased permeability value [12,21,22]. This
is not a realistic model of the mechanisms involved in the process.
Recently, Shahir et al. [15] suggested a variable permeability func-
tion with respect to excess pore pressure ratio. They determined
the constants of this function by adjusting the results of the
numerical model using the results of centrifuge measurements.
Although this variable permeability model established an appro-
priate framework to account for permeability variation, there is
no theoretical basis for the proposed constants of this function.
In addition, these constants were found in the course of model cal-
ibration for one test only and may not be appropriate for numerical
modeling of centrifuge tests under different conditions.
The present study uses a revised form of the variable permeabil-
ity model function proposed by Shahir et al. [15] implemented in a
fully coupled dynamic analysis adopting a two-surface plasticity
constitutive law. The model investigates the effects of permeability
changes in saturated sand under earthquake loading on the results
of numerical modeling. The original variable permeability function
was modified by selecting different values for the function con-
stants. Theoretical evidence and experimental observations were
utilized to discover the rough values for these parameters for sand.
These values were then calibrated such that the results of numer-
ical simulations of benchmark problems such as settlements and
excess pore pressure are a better match to experimental records.
The benchmark problems were four well-documented centrifuge
experiments covering a range of values of the following parame-
ters: relative density, initial permeability, maximum base acceler-
ation, and height of the sand layer. The focus of the investigation
was the degree of improvement in predicting liquefaction-induced
settlement using the variable permeability function with the
proposed constants in the numerical model.
 H. Shahir et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 211–223
2. Permeability characteristics of liquefied sand
An appropriate variable permeability function for saturated
sand under cyclic loading as a function of excess pore pressure ra-
tio (ru) calls for accurate estimation of the permeability coefficient
during extreme liquefaction (ru = 1). Although some approaches
estimate the level of permeability increase during liquefaction, di-
rect measurement of the permeability coefficient from laboratory
tests is difficult. In this study, theoretical evidence is used with
experimental observation to determine the range of increase in
permeability during liquefaction. This range is the basis for select-
ing the constant for the variable permeability function that con-
trols the value of the permeability coefficient during liquefaction
applied for all simulations in this study.
2.1. Theoretical evidence
Darcy’s law for the rate of creep flow through porous media is
valid for a wide range of soil types for the normal range of hydrau-
lic gradients in geotechnical problems. Despite its simplicity, this
law calls for suitable estimation of hydraulic conductivity (k).
The fundamental equation for k combines three influence factors
as follows [23]:
k ¼ ff f v fs ð1Þ
where ff is the effect of fluid properties (density and viscosity of the
fluid); fv, is the void space (interconnected effective porosity of the
mass and tortuosity of the flow paths); and fs is solid grain surface
characteristics (specific surface area, roughness, and roundness of
particles).
For the permeability of a specific saturated sand deposit, only
changes in fv are responsible for the variation of permeability.
Porosity of the soil mass and tortuosity of the flow paths through
the porous medium are the main factors affecting the void space
properties. Permeability is related to the effective porosity of a soil
mass, which is defined as the fraction of the volume of intercon-
nected voids to the total volume [24]. Interconnected voids in a gi-
ven soil mass can be visualized as a number of passages through
which fluid flows. It is easy to understand why soil permeability in-
creases as effective porosity of the mass increases. The value for
effective porosity is always less than the total porosity, which is
the ratio of the volume of all pores in the mass to the volume of
the mass.
Another important feature of flow through porous media is
tortuosity of the flow. A common definition of tortuosity (T) is
the ratio of the length of the actual path of the fluid particles to
the shortest path length in the direction of the flow. Tortuosity is
always greater than one and decreases as porosity increases [24].
A lower tortuosity factor results in higher permeability of the soil
mass. The permeability coefficient (k) can be related to the void ra-
tio and tortuosity factor through the Kozeny–Carman (K–C) equa-
tion. This equation has been proven to predict fairly good values for
the permeability coefficient of sandy soils and incorporates both
the void ratio (e) and T:
cf 1 e3
k¼ ð2Þ
lf K o S0 T 1 þ e
2 2
where cf is the unit weight of the fluid; lf is the fluid viscosity; Ko is
the pore shape factor; and S0 is the specific surface.
Variation in soil permeability over the course of liquefaction can
be justified by tracking changes in void space properties during
earthquake loading. Shaking a saturated sand deposit eventually
results in a decrease of the whole void ratio of the soil mass. On
the other hand, the spreading of the liquefied region throughout
the soil mass during shaking causes a loss of contact between the
213
sand grains and creates additional pathways for water flow. In
other words, the effective (interconnected) porosity of the soil
mass temporarily increases during liquefaction of the soil, espe-
cially in the upper layers of the sand deposit, through which high
hydraulic gradients take place. Quicksand conditions are probable
when the granular layer under gravity loads is subjected to a crit-
ical upward pore fluid flow during liquefaction. Therefore, an in-
crease in soil permeability during liquefaction can be expected,
considering the increase in effective porosity of the soil mass.
Measurement of effective (or interconnected) porosity is not
routine in geotechnical engineering. Several hydrological studies
have evaluated the effective porosity of soils based on field and
laboratory techniques [25]. McWorter and Sunada [26] is a widely
accepted study that compared total and effective porosity values
for different geomaterials. According to this reference, the mean
values of the total and effective porosity for fine sand were about
0.43 and 0.33, respectively. Dead-end pores gradually collapse dur-
ing shaking and, as a consequence, the effective porosity of the soil
increases from its initial value (mean value of 0.33). Assuming that
all dead-end pores are removed from the soil mass during liquefac-
tion, the effective porosity of the soil mass reaches the total poros-
ity value (mean value of 0.43). By assuming a level of change in
effective porosity and accepting the validity of the K–C equation,
the permeability coefficient of sand increases more than three-fold
during liquefaction.
Another effect of liquefaction on soil permeability is alteration
of the tortuosity factor through the liquefied soil. Direct measure-
ment of T is not possible using conventional laboratory tests. A
simplified mathematical model, however, shows that the maxi-
mum tortuosity for a mono-sized assembly of spherical particles
is p/2 [24]. In practical problems where the K–C pffiffiffi equation for
granular soils is used, T is usually taken to equal 2 [27]. During
the liquefaction state, T decreases significantly as the sand grains
float in the surrounding pore water. The K–C equation assumes
that the permeability coefficient increases two- or three-fold if T
approaches unity.
It can be concluded that the permeability coefficient increases
significantly during earthquake loading of saturated sand deposits.
Although the authors found no straightforward method to estimate
the level of permeability change during liquefaction, the issues
discussed herein indicate that an increase in the permeability coef-
ficient of saturated sand during liquefaction is in the order of 6 to 9
times the initial (static) value, considering the superimposed ef-
fects of effective porosity and changes in T.
2.2. Experimental observations
Several experimental studies quantitatively evaluated the
increase in permeability of saturated soil during cyclic loading.
Arulanandan and Sybico [21] studied variations in the permeability
coefficient by measuring changes in the electrical resistance of sat-
urated sand deposits during centrifuge tests. They introduced pore
shape factor and tortuosity as the main causes of the growth of the
permeability coefficient during liquefaction, as shown in the K–C
equation. According to their study, the average increase in the per-
meability coefficient of sand is 6–7 times its initial value.
Jafarzadeh and Yanagisawa [5] conducted shaking table tests to
examine settlement of saturated sand columns under cyclic load-
ing. They assumed laminar flow through the soil mass during the
application of input motion and employed Darcy’s law to calculate
the increased permeability coefficient by measuring the cumula-
tive water flowing upward through the sand column. They con-
cluded that the average increase in the permeability coefficient
was 5-6 times greater than that for the static condition.
Ha et al. [28] conducted shaking table tests on five kinds of sand
with different effective grain sizes and coefficients of uniformity.
214 H. Shahir et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 211–223
They examined the dissipation pattern of excess pore pressure
after liquefaction using analysis of the rate of dissipation. Perme-
ability during dissipation was calculated using measured settle-
ment and dissipation velocity. They assumed linear variation for
the permeability coefficient over time during the buildup and dis-
sipation phases and indicated that the increase in the permeability
coefficient during liquefaction was 1.4–5 times higher than the ini-
tial permeability for the sands tested.
Recently, Su et al. [29] estimated the increase in the permeabil-
ity coefficient of saturated sand subjected to earthquake loading
using the results of a centrifuge test. Using the law of conservation
of mass, they obtained the average discharge velocity from the rate
of surface settlement. By introducing this discharge velocity and
the hydraulic gradient of the flow calculated from recorded excess
pore pressures into Darcy’s law, the increased permeability coeffi-
cient was back-calculated and found to be as much as 6 times
greater than its static value. They then conducted numerical simu-
lations using the constant increased permeability coefficient that
showed good agreement with experimental measurements.
Except for the results of Ha et al. [28] that imply that in-flight
permeability of saturated sand at the time of liquefaction state is
a maximum of 5 times its static value, the results indicate that
the average increase in the permeability coefficient during testing
is 5–7 times the initial value.
During each experiment, the permeability coefficient gradually
increased from its initial static value to a maximum in-flight per-
meability value that corresponded to the liquefaction condition.
At the end of shaking, excess pore pressure dissipated and the per-
meability coefficient decreased until it reached its initial value
again. It is evident that in-flight permeability is significantly higher
than the average permeability. To obtain a rough estimate of in-
flight permeability, two simple assumptions were made: (a) linear
variation for the increase and decrease of the permeability coeffi-
cient over time, and (b) the duration of liquefaction state was
much less than the duration of the buildup and dissipation period.
Based on the ideal assumptions of triangular variation of the per-
meability coefficient over time, it can be shown that the ratio of
in-flight permeability to average permeability is about 2. Conse-
quently, it is possible to estimate the in-flight permeability of sat-
urated sand at the time of liquefaction to be 10–14 times that of its
initial static value.
Both experimental observation and theoretical evidence con-
firm that the ratio of the permeability coefficient during liquefac-
tion to its initial value is in the order of 10. The variable
permeability function applied to the proposed numerical model
takes into account variations in permeability (see Section 4).
3. General aspects of numerical modeling
3.1. Finite element formulation for porous media
In this study, a fully coupled u–P formulation was applied to
model the two-phase porous medium of saturated sand. The pri-
mary unknowns in this formulation are displacement of the solid
phase (u) and pore fluid pressure (P). The fully coupled effective
stress u–P formulation is a simplified case for the general set of
equations governing the behavior of saturated porous media. This
formulation is applicable to dynamic problems where high-fre-
quency oscillations, such as soil deposits under earthquake load-
ing, are not important [30]. Using the finite element (FE) method
for spatial discretization, the u–P formulation is:
Z
€þ
MU BT r0 dV  QP  f ðsÞ ¼ 0
V
Q T U_ þ HP þ SP_  f ðpÞ ¼ 0
where M is the mass matrix; U is the solid displacement vector; B is
the strain-displacement matrix; rh is the effective stress tensor; Q
is the discrete gradient operator coupling the motion and flow
equations; P is the pore pressure vector; S is the compressibility
matrix; and H is the permeability matrix. The vectors f(s) and f(p) in-
clude the effects of body forces, external loads, and fluid fluxes.
Eq. (3) is the equation of continuity of motion; the first term is
the inertia force of the mixture followed by the internal force
caused by soil skeleton deformation and by the internal force
caused by pore fluid pressure. Eq. (4) is the equation for continuity
of fluid flow; the first and third terms represent the rate of volume
change for the soil skeleton and the fluid phase, respectively, and
the second term is the rate of pore fluid seepage.
In this study, numerical simulation of saturated sand behavior
under seismic loading was done by numerical integration of Eqs.
(3) and (4) and their finite element formulation using the Open
System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees), an
open-source finite element framework developed at the Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center. This evolving software
is a reliable tool for simulating the seismic response of structural
and geotechnical systems. The version of OpenSees used in this
study used the variable permeability model [15].
3.2. Constitutive law
A critical state two-surface plasticity model was employed to
model sand behavior. This model was originally developed by
Manzari and Dafalias [31] and refined by Dafalias and Manzari
[13]. The formulation is based on the bounding surface plasticity
theory [32] within a critical state soil mechanics framework [33]
that yields a comprehensive multi-axial constitutive model for
simulating the monotonic and cyclic behavior of sand.
The formulation of the model is defined by bounding (peak),
dilatancy, and critical surfaces. A schematic representation of these
surfaces in the stress ratio p-plane is shown in Fig. 1. In this model,
the isotropic hypoelasticity assumption was adopted using elastic
shear modulus as a function of current pressure and void ratio
[34]:
 0:5
ð2:97  eÞ2 P
G ¼ G0 Pat ð5Þ
1þe Pat
where G0 is the model parameter. The yield surface is a circular cone
with its apex at the origin. The size of the yield surface is normally
considered a constant (no isotropic hardening) and is a small value
for most applications. The critical surface directly corresponds to
the critical stress ratio in the triaxial space. The critical state of a soil
is attained when the stress ratio g = q/p equals the critical stress ra-
tio (M), which is a material constant. Similarly, the bounding and
dilatancy lines are introduced by defining the peak (bounding)
ð3Þ
ð4Þ Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the two-surface model in the p-plane.
 H. Shahir et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 211–223
stress ratio (Mb) and dilatancy stress ratio (Md). In the current mod-
el, Mb and Md are related to the critical stress ratio using the state
parameter as follows:
M b ¼ M expðnb wÞ; M d ¼ M expðnd wÞ
where nb and nd are positive material constants. The state parame-
ter proposed by Been and Jefferies [35] is w = e  ec where e is the
current void ratio of the soil element and ec is the critical void ratio
corresponding to the existing confining stress (Pc). In the current
model, the power relation was used to define the critical void ratio
as:
 n
Pc
ec ¼ e0  kc
Pat
where e0, kc, and n are critical state constants.
In Fig. 1, the bounding and dilatancy surfaces are delineated by
dashed lines indicating their change with w, and the critical surface
by a solid line. All surfaces are fully determined by the value of w
and this increases the numerical efficiency of the model. The state
parameter also includes the combined effect of density (void ratio)
and confining stress. One main feature of the current constitutive
model is its applicability to all densities and confining pressures
using the same set of material constants.
The plastic modulus (Kp) and dilatancy coefficient (D) are re-
lated to the distance from the bounding and dilatancy surfaces as
follows:
2 variation of permeability during earthquake loading of saturated
Kp ¼ ph b : n
3 sand (see Section 2), however, the maximum rate of increase
D ¼ Ad d : n
The vectors b and d in Fig. 1 are the vectors connecting the cur-
rent stress state to its image on the bounding and dilatancy sur-
faces, respectively. The mean effective stress is p and h is a
positive scalar-valued function. Ad is a function of the effects of
the fabric change phenomenon that arises during stress increment
reversal after dilative plastic volumetric strain.
The distance-dependent plastic modulus is the main feature of
the classical bounding surface model [32]. In the current model,
the dilatancy coefficient is defined based on distance dependency
in the bounding surface model.
Dafalias and Manzari [13] compared the values of their model
constants for Toyoura sand with laboratory data for a wide range
of pressures and densities and presented the proper values. Shahir
et al. [15] and Shahir and Pak [36] calibrated the model constants
for Nevada sand using monotonic and cyclic triaxial test data per-
formed by Arulmoli et al. [37]. Full mathematical formulation of
the model can be found in Dafalias and Manzari [13].
4. Variable permeability model
Changes in effective (interconnected) porosity of the soil mass
and tortuosity of the flow paths through the porous medium play
a major role in altering the permeability of the saturated sand dur-
ing earthquake loading. The rate of change depends on the type of
contact between the soil particles (macroscopically on the effective
stress state). Connecting the permeability coefficient to the excess
pore pressure ratio (ratio of excess pore pressure to initial vertical
effective stress of soil) can help clarify microscopic events in mac-
roscopic analyses. Shahir et al. [15] suggested a general variable
permeability function for excess pore pressure ratio (ru). Their
equation shows a gradual increase in permeability up to the onset
215
of liquefaction, when the permeability coefficient equals a times
the initial permeability (ki):
kb ¼ ki ð1 þ ða  1Þrbu1 Þ r u < 1 during pore water pressure build up phase
ð6Þ kl ¼ aki r u ¼ 1 during liquefaction state
kd ¼ ki ð1 þ ða  1Þrbu2 Þ ru < 1 during pore water pressure dissipation phase
ð10Þ
where ki is the initial (static) coefficient of permeability and a, b1
and b2 are constants. Shahir et al. [15] implemented the above for-
mulation using OpenSees to update the coefficient of permeability
at the end of each time step during seismic analysis and applied it
to simulate the behavior of a saturated sand layer subjected to
earthquake loading in a centrifuge experiment. By comparing the
ð7Þ
numerical results with centrifuge experiment records, they cali-
brated the constants as follows:
a ¼ 20; b1 ¼ 1; b2 ¼ 8:9
Using Eq. (10) with above values as constants has two main
drawbacks. First, using (a = 20) in this equation causes the perme-
ability coefficient to equal 20 times the initial permeability during
liquefaction (ru < 1), which is much higher than that reported in
some experimental observations and higher than that attained
from theoretical evidence (see Section 2). Second, using the value
of 1.0 for b1 allows a linear relationship between the permeability
coefficient and the excess pore water pressure ratio, which
results in a considerable increase of soil permeability before
liquefaction (ru = 1). According to the established theory for
ð8Þ
for permeability reasonably occurs at ru values near unity once
ð9Þ the separation of contacting sand particles begins. Values
greater than unity for b1 seem to express the phenomenon more
realistically.
The applied variable permeability model follows the general
formulation developed by Shahir et al. [15] with some modifica-
tions. As stated previously, a = 10 was assumed in numerical anal-
ysis of the permeability coefficient during complete liquefaction.
An appropriate value for b1 is also critical for accurate simulation
of the settlement and rate of excess pore pressure buildup.
Although it is reasonable to assume the value of b1 to be
greater than unity, there is no convincing logic to determine its
exact value. Rahmani et al. [38] utilized the original formulation
proposed by Shahir et al. [15] (where b1 = 6.0 was assumed) for
numerical simulation of a centrifuge experiment and reported
good agreement between simulation results and experiment
measurements.
The value of b2 is a key parameter for accurate simulation of ex-
cess pore pressure variation during the dissipation period. Based
on a series of shaking table tests on five type of sand, Ha et al.
[28] indicated that the average rate of permeability decrease dur-
ing dissipation (end of shaking to completion of consolidation) is
almost one third of the rate of permeability increase during the
buildup phase. Numerical simulation of this requires applying a va-
lue for b2 that is greater than that for b1 in the variable permeabil-
ity function.
In this study, parameters b1 and b2 were calibrated such that the
results of numerical simulations give a better match to the exper-
imental records (see Section 5.3.1). Based on the results, appropri-
ate values for the constants in the general variable permeability
function proposed by Shahir et al. [15] are b1 = 2, b2 = 10, and
a = 10. The following equation is achieved for numerical simulation
of saturated sand behavior under cyclic loading (Fig. 2) by substi-
tuting the above values into Eq. (10):
216 H. Shahir et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 211–223
Fig. 2. Schematic graph of proposed permeability function.
kb ¼ ki ð1 þ 9r 2u Þ r u < 1 during pore water pressure build up phase
kl ¼ 10ki r u ¼ 1 during liquefaction state
kd ¼ ki ð1 þ 9r 10
u Þ r u < 1 during pore water pressure dissipation phase
ð11Þ
5. Validation of the proposed model
5.1. Benchmark centrifuge tests
In this study, the results of four well-documented centrifuge
experiments were applied as benchmarks for validation of the
numerical model. The benchmark tests were selected to represent
different conditions for relative density, initial permeability, max-
imum base acceleration, and height of sand layer.
5.1.1. Benchmark experiment 1
Centrifuge model test No. 1 was selected from the VELACS pro-
ject conducted by Taboada and Dobry [16] at Rensselaer Polytech-
nic Institute. In this test, a laminar box containing a uniformly
leveled layer of Nevada no.120 sand (Gs = 2.67, emax = 0.887,
emin = 0.511, D10 = 0.08 mm) with a relative density of approxi-
mately 40% that is fully saturated with water was subjected to a
centrifugal acceleration of 50 g. This centrifugal acceleration
resulted in prototype soil permeability 50 times greater than the
permeability of the sand specimen. The height of the sand layer
was 10 m in the prototype scale. The laminar box was excited hor-
izontally at the base using the target prototype accelerogram with
a peak acceleration of 0.23 g.
5.1.2. Benchmark experiments 2 and 3
A series of four centrifuge experiments on buildings situated at
the top of a liquefiable layer in a rectangular flexible shear beam
container (FSB3) were performed using the large centrifuge facility
at the Center for Geotechnical Modeling at the University of Cali-
fornia, Davis by Dashti [17]. Free field results for two of these four
models were used in the present study to validate the numerical
model (denoted here as experiments 2 and 3). Experiment 2 was
for a liquefiable soil layer (Nevada sand; Dr = 30%; Cu  2;
Gs = 2.65; D50 = 0.14 mm) with a prototype thickness of 3 m located
beneath a 2 m thick Monterey sand layer placed to minimize cap-
illary rise during liquefaction. The centrifugal acceleration was 55 g
and the models were saturated with fluid having a viscosity 22
times greater than the viscosity of water so that the permeability
at prototype scale would be twice real soil permeability. An actual
earthquake ground motion record from the Kobe Port Island sta-
tion during the 1995 Kobe earthquake with peak base accelerations
of about 0.62 g (large Kobe) was applied to the base of the model.
The water level was 1.1 m below the surface. In experiment 3, the
thickness of the liquefiable layer was the same as for experiment 2,
but the relative density of sand was 50% and the specimen was
subjected to the moderate Kobe Port Island event with a peak
acceleration of 0.17 g.
5.1.3. Benchmark experiment 4
This centrifuge experiment was done by Gonzalez et al. [18] at
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. This centrifuge model consisted of
uniform saturated Nevada no. 120 sand placed in a laminar box at a
relative density of 55% and topped by a steel plate. The soil deposit
height was 24 m in the prototype scale. The steel plate applied a
uniform prototype surcharge of 140 kPa at the soil surface. Several
holes were made through the steel plate to provide drainage from
the soil surface. The pore fluid used in this experiment had a vis-
cosity 40 times greater than that of water and the model was spun
up to a centrifuge acceleration of 80 g. The soil column was excited
horizontally at the base by 50 cycles of a sinusoidal acceleration
with prototype frequency of 1.5 Hz and peak acceleration of 0.25 g.
Table 1 provides a summary of the important aspects of the
benchmark experiments. Input motions for all experiments are
presented in Fig. 3.
5.2. Description of numerical models
In all benchmark experiments considered in the current study, a
leveled uniform sand layer placed in a laminar box was subjected
to one-directional earthquake excitation for which one-dimen-
sional behavior is expected. Experimental records of pore pressure
and/or deformations at similar elevations have been reported [18]
and confirm that numerical modeling of a single soil column is suf-
ficient to simulate the main features of soil behavior under hori-
zontal base excitation. In this study, a column of 8-noded cubic
elements with u–p formulation was applied for all numerical anal-
yses. Each node had 3 displacement and one pore water pressure
degree(s) of freedom; however, lateral nodes at equal depths were
tied together in the direction of excitation and all nodes were fixed
in the opposite horizontal direction. The mesh base nodes were
fixed in all directions. Pore water pressures were free to develop
for all nodes except those at the ground surface. The values of
the constants for the constitutive model for Nevada sand are
shown in Table 2.
5.3. Results and discussion
5.3.1. Evaluation of parameters b1 and b2
As stated in Section 4, the value of b1 (the power of ru in the var-
iable permeability function for the buildup phase) should be great-
er than unity to ensure that the maximum rate of increase in
permeability occurs at excess pore pressure ratios close to unity.
Since there is no explicit approach to determine the exact value
of this constant experimentally or theoretically, numerical simula-
tion was employed in this study to estimate the proper value of b1.
 H. Shahir et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 211–223 217

Table 1
Summary of benchmark experiments used for numerical modeling.

Researcher(s) Model characteristics Input motion

Thickness of liquefiable Spinning Fluid Permeability Relative Type amax Duration***
layer* (m) acceleration (g) viscosity** coefficient*(m/s) density (%) (g) (s)
Tabaoda and 10 50 1  lwater 3.30  103 40 Earthquake 0.23 11
Dobry
4
Gonzalez 24 80 40  lwater 1.17  10 55 Sinusoidal 0.25 34
et al.
Dashti 3 55 22  lwater 1.42  104 30 Large Kobe 1995 0.62 15.5
Earthquake
Dashti 3 55 22  lwater 1.22  104 50 Moderate Kobe 1995 0.17 8.5
Earthquake
*
Values in prototype scale.
**
Values in model scale.
***
Time between first and last exceedance of acceleration from 0.05 g.

Fig. 3. Input motions applied in benchmark experiments.

For this purpose, analyses for different values of b1 were done to
simulate the benchmark centrifuge experiments. Figs. 4 and 5 indi-
cate the evolution of settlement and excess pore pressure (depth
7.5 m) over time for values of b1 obtained from numerical simula-
tion of benchmark experiment 1. Fig. 4 shows that using lower val-
ues of b1 in numerical simulations increased the surface settlement
of the sand layer. Fig. 5 shows that using a higher value of b1 in
numerical simulation resulted in higher values for peak excess
pore pressure.
Fig. 6 compares the results of numerical simulations of
benchmark experiment 1 with records of excess pore pressure
and surface settlement to obtain a suitable value for b1 to find
the best match to the experimental records. In this figure, the set-
tlement factor (ratio of final settlement from numerical modeling
to experimental record) and maximum excess pore pressure factor
(ratio of maximum excess pore pressure from numerical modeling
to experimental value) are presented for different values of b1. The
maximum excess pore pressure ratio was based on the maximum
excess pore pressure at the bottom of the liquefiable sand layer.
The results indicate that b1 = 1.0 for the variable permeability
function gave the best result for predicted settlement (settlement
ratio of about 0.8). On the other hand, numerically predicted excess
pore pressure improved by selecting higher values for b1. It was
important in this study to achieve a satisfactory level of accuracy
when simulating both settlement and excess pore pressure using
the same set of function constants. From this figure, it can be re-
solved that b1  1.5 gives the best results; however, similar sensi-
tive analyses conducted for other benchmark problems indicate
218 H. Shahir et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 211–223

Table 2
Dafalias-Manzari material parameters for Nevada sand [36].

Parameter function Parameter index Value

Elasticity G0 150
m 0.05
Critical state M 1.14
c 0.78
kc 0.027
e0 0.83
n 0.45
Yield surface m 0.02
Plastic modulus h0 9.7
ch 1.02
nb 2.56
Dilatancy A0 0.81
nd 1.05
Fabric dilatancy Zmax 5
cz 800

Fig. 5. Evolution of excess pore pressure over time at depth of 7.5 m for b1
(benchmark experiment 1).

Fig. 4. Evolution of settlement over time for b1 (benchmark experiment 1).

Fig. 6. Variation of settlement and excess pore pressure factor vs. b1 (benchmark
experiment 1).

Numerical modeling of all four benchmark experiments using

that the optimum value of b1 is generally in the range of 1 to 3. An
average value of b1 = 2, thus, proposed for the variable permeabil-
ity function.
A similar approach was adopted for the calibration of b2. As
mentioned, the value of b2 plays the key role in proper simulation
of excess pore pressure dissipation after the end of shaking. To
evaluate the effects of different values for b2 on the variation in ex-
cess pore pressure over time, numerical modeling of benchmark
experiment 1 was done. Fig. 7 shows that higher values of b2 in
the numerical simulation increased the excess pore pressure dur-
ing the dissipation phase.
Fig. 8 shows the results of numerical modeling of benchmark
experiment 1 for different values of b2 compared to experimental
records. Excess pore pressure factor (ratio of maximum excess pore
pressure from numerical modeling to experimental values) at two
moments during the dissipation period is depicted against b2. The
results confirm that using a greater value for b2 in the variable per-
meability function increased the accuracy of the predicted excess
pore pressures during the dissipation period. The results, however,
also indicate that values greater than 10 do not alter the numerical
prediction significantly. Based on these findings, b2 = 10 was used
in the proposed variable permeability model.
the variable permeability function with the proposed constants
validated the proposed numerical model.
5.3.2. Simulation of centrifuge tests using Nevada sand
The results of numerical analysis simulating experiment 1 are
presented in Figs. 9 and 10. Fig. 9 compares the time history of sur-
face settlement from the numerical simulation using the proposed
variable permeability equation with the experimental time history
and numerical simulation using constant (static) permeability. The
results show that the numerical ultimate settlement (t = 50 s) is
about 27% less than the recorded value, but the proposed model
significantly improved the results of conventional numerical mod-
eling using the constant permeability coefficient (settlement with
about 64% error). The end of strong shaking, defined as the last
exceedance of the acceleration from 0.05 g, is depicted on the set-
tlement time history. It can be seen that the amount of settlement
at the end of shaking is about 81% and 87% of the value of final set-
tlement for numerical and experimental results, respectively.
Fig. 10 shows variation in generated excess pore pressure by
depth at the end of strong shaking. The excess pore pressure was
under-predicted with a maximum difference of about 15% from
 H. Shahir et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 211–223 219

Fig. 7. Evolution of excess pore pressure over time at a depth of 7.5 m for different
values of b2 (benchmark experiment 1).

Fig. 10. Comparison of numerical and experimental excess pore pressure develop-
ment by depth at the end of shaking (benchmark experiment 1).

Fig. 8. Variation of excess pore pressure factor versus b2 (benchmark experiment

1).

Fig. 11. Measured and computed peak horizontal displacement by depth (bench-
mark experiment 1).

the experimental results. Although the focus of this study is

improvement of numerical models for predicting liquefaction-in-
duced surface settlement, which is important for leveled ground
under earthquake loading, the model also simulated other features
of the dynamic response with a good degree of accuracy. Fig. 11
shows the profile of measured and computed peak horizontal dis-
Fig. 9. Measured and computed time histories for settlement (benchmark exper- placement by depth. The maximum discrepancy between numeri-
iment 1). cal and experimental results is about 18% at the ground surface.
220 H. Shahir et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 211–223
Fig. 12. Measured and computed time histories for settlement (benchmark
experiment 2).
Fig. 13. Measured and computed time histories for excess pore pressure at middle
of liquefiable sand layer (benchmark experiment 2).
The results of numerical simulation for benchmark experiment
2 are depicted in Figs. 12 and 13 for variation of settlement and ex-
cess pore pressure over time. Although the numerical simulation
does not show abnormal fluctuations for settlement for the centri-
fuge test, the surface settlement of the model at the end of excita-
tion was predicted using the proposed variable permeability
model. Fig. 13 shows that the model maximum excess pore pres-
sure for the middle of the liquefiable sand layer using the proposed
model is in good agreement with the experimental record.
Some researchers have assumed a constant increase in perme-
ability coefficient to account for permeability variation in liquefac-
tion modeling. For example, Arulanandan and Sybico [21] used an
increased permeability coefficient of 3.7 ki (initial value for perme-
ability coefficient) to simulate a centrifuge experiment where the
variation of permeability was recorded. They obtained good agree-
ment between the numerical results and the experimental mea-
surement for settlement. Balakrishnan [22] employed an increase
factor of 10 for permeability to adjust the results of the numerical
modeling for centrifuge measurements. This factor brought the
settlement value closer to the observed value, but caused a signif-
icant reduction in the peak and residual pore pressures, causing
Fig. 14. Measured and computed time histories for settlement (benchmark
experiment 3).
Fig. 15. Measured and computed time histories for excess pore pressure at middle
of liquefiable sand layer (benchmark experiment 3).
large variation from the experimental measurements. Taiebat
et al. [12] used a fully coupled effective stress numerical model
with a critical state two-surface plasticity model to simulate the
VELACS model no. 1. They showed that increasing permeability
to 4 times the initial value gave the best fit to the centrifuge data.
They concluded that the coefficient of permeability should not be a
constant parameter during shaking and drainage processes when
they compared the predicted and measured short-term and long-
term pore pressures.
Figs. 12 and 13 show the results of numerical simulation
assuming a constant increase in the permeability coefficient and
the results of the proposed variable permeability model. A constant
increase in permeability of 5 ki was used as the average value for
initial and in-flight permeability (10 ki according to Eq. (11)). The
results show that using a constant increase in the permeability
coefficient in liquefaction simulation improves the prediction of
settlement over using a constant initial permeability coefficient.
It cannot properly simulate the response of pore water pressure,
especially during the dissipation phase, which is in agreement with
 H. Shahir et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 211–223
Fig. 16. Measured and computed time histories for settlement (experimental
benchmark 4).
Fig. 17. Measured and computed time histories for excess pore pressure for
experimental benchmark 4 at depths of (a) 13 m; and (b) 3.9 m.
results reported by other researchers. On the other hand, the re-
sults obtained by the numerical model equipped with a variable
permeability function with the proposed constants demonstrated
good capability in modeling the main features of soil response
221
Fig. 18. Comparison of volumetric strain from numerical simulation for variable
permeability function and constant permeability.
for surface settlement and pore pressure variation during buildup,
liquefaction, and dissipation phases.
Figs. 14 and 15 present similar results for benchmark experi-
ment 3. For this model, the rate of settlement was identical for
the numerical and experimental results. The predicted final settle-
ment and maximum excess pore pressure for the developed model
was about 10% less than that measured in the lab.
Fig. 16 compares the time history of surface settlement ob-
served in experiment 4 and the numerical results from simulations
using the variable permeability model. The numerical curve of the
model traces the trend of the experimental time history. The re-
sults show that the numerical model predicts the settlement of
the sand layer at the end of the excitation phase with less than
15% error. Shahir et al. [15] increased the factor of permeability
only by adjusting the results of the numerical modeling (such as
settlement) according to the measurements of centrifuge experi-
ment 4. Using this method, they proposed that the permeability
coefficient should be 20 times the initial permeability during lique-
faction, which contradicts available experimental observations and
cannot be justified by existing theories. The settlement in experi-
ment 4 predicted by the modified variable permeability model is
slightly less than that from the model proposed by Shahir et al.
[15]. The revised function has the advantage of predicting settle-
ment and pore pressures to an accuracy suitable for experiments
under different conditions using reasonable values for the variable
permeability function.
Fig. 17(a) and (b) shows the excess pore pressure time histories
for numerical and experimental models at two depths (13.0 and
3.9 m, respectively). The excess pore pressure time histories at dif-
ferent depths indicate that liquefaction spreads through the soil
from top to bottom of the specimen and requires about 7 s to prop-
agate from a depth of 3.9 to 13.0 m. A similar pattern having nearly
the same propagation velocity was observed in the numerical re-
sults with a few seconds delay over the experimental records. At
both depths, the experimental and numerical time histories inter-
sect after 25 to 30 s.
5.3.3. Predicted settlement for variable permeability function vs.
constant permeability
Fig. 18 compares average volumetric strain predicted by the
numerical simulation using the variable permeability function
and constant permeability. The figure shows that, although numer-
ical simulations under-predict the average volumetric strains and,
consequently, settlement, the proposed model greatly enhanced
222 H. Shahir et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 211–223
the accuracy surface settlement predictions over the results of
numerical simulations using constant permeability.
It should be emphasized that proper modeling of permeability
changes during cyclic loading of saturated sand removes a major
cause of deviations between numerical simulation and experimen-
tal results. Other reasons can be cited for deviation observed be-
tween experimental data and the results of numerical
simulations obtained using the variable permeability function.
For example, since no vertical acceleration input was applied in
the numerical models in this study, the discrepancy between
numerical and experimental results can be attributed to the
assumption made in the numerical model that does not completely
correspond to the real test conditions (e.g., the measured vertical
acceleration in benchmark experiment 1 is about 0.04 g [16]).
Employing the same set of constitutive model constants for differ-
ent Nevada sands in the experiments and the same constants for
variable permeability functions for all different conditions may
not be in complete accordance with the real physics of the prob-
lem. Moreover, values of some modeling parameters, such as the
fluid compressibility coefficient, that have not been measured in
the experiments may significantly affect the results.
It is notable that all models include free field conditions (without
slope) under horizontal excitation, which does not cause large shear
strains. Fig. 11 shows lateral displacement of the benchmark number
1 for a surface of about 7 cm, which is equivalent to an average shear
strain of 0.7%. This level of shear strain is on the order of medium-
strains and less than the level of failure strains. The level of shear
strain in the other benchmarks are on the same order (benchmark
2 is about 1%; benchmark 3 is 0.2%; benchmark 4 is 0.5%). Therefore,
the small deformation theory applied in this study obtains appropri-
ate results. However, employing the large deformation theory may
enhance numerical modeling results to some extent.
6. Conclusions
In this study, a revised form of a recently proposed variable per-
meability function was implemented in a fully coupled dynamic
numerical model to simulate the behavior of saturated sand under
earthquake loading. For this purpose, a well-known critical state
two-surface plasticity constitutive law adequately verified in sim-
ulating cyclic behavior of sands was employed in the numerical
analyses. The variable permeability function which relates the
permeability coefficient to the excess pore pressure ratio permits
the gradual increase/decrease of permeability coefficient with gen-
eration/dissipation of excess pore water pressure. The constants of
the variable permeability function were calibrated such that the
results of numerical simulation give a better match to the experi-
mental records. In this relationship, the maximum permeability
coefficient taking place during the liquefaction of sand is consid-
ered to be equal 10 times of the initial (static) permeability coeffi-
cient which is in agreement with several experimental
observations and also can be justified by theoretical evidence.
For validation purposes, four well-documented centrifuge
experiments using a uniform level layer of Nevada sand under
different conditions were simulated for factors such as relative
density, initial permeability, maximum base acceleration, and
height of sand layer using the proposed model. Generally, the
results of numerical simulations, including excess pore pressure
time histories at different depths and settlement of ground surface,
are in good agreement with the experimental measurements. This
implies that the coupled processes of soil mass deformation and
fluid flow through the mass can be appropriately simulated using
the proposed numerical model.
Based on the findings of this study, the proposed numerical
model is capable of simulating the behavior of saturated sand
under earthquake loading with a suitable degree of accuracy. In
particular, surface settlement of the sand layer can be predicted
by the numerical model involving the variable permeability func-
tion with a significant improvement relative to most previous
numerical models using the constant permeably coefficient. To
prove the comprehensiveness of the variable permeability function
with proposed constants, experiments under different conditions
such as sand type and geometry of the liquefiable layer, should
be examined using the established model.
References
[1] Castro G. Liquefaction and cyclic mobility of saturated sands. Journal of the
geotechnical engineering division. ASCE, vol. 101, No. GT6; 1975. p. 551–69.
[2] Seed HB. Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for level ground
during earthquakes. J Geotech Eng Div 1979;105(GT2):201–55.
[3] Poulos SJ, Castro G, France JW. Liquefaction evaluation procedure. J Geotech
Eng, ASCE 1985;111(6):772–92.
[4] Ishihara K. Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes. Geotechnique
1993;43(3):351–451.
[5] Jafarzadeh F, Yanagisawa E. Settlement of sand models under unidirectional
shaking. In: Ishihara K, editor. First international conference on earthquake
geotechnical engineering, IS-Tokyo; 1996. p. 693–8.
[6] Dobry R, Taboada VM. Possible lessons from VELACS No. 2 results. In:
Arulanandan K, Scott RF, editors. Proceedings of the international conference
on verification of numerical procedures for the analysis of soil liquefaction
problems, vol. 2, Rotterdam: Balkema; 1994. p. 1341–52.
[7] Byrne PM, Park SS, Beaty M, Sharp M, Gonzalez L, Abdoun T. Numerical
modeling of liquefaction and comparison with centrifuge tests. Can Geotech J
2004;41:193–211.
[8] Andrianopoulos K, Papadimitriou A, Bouckovalas G. Use of a new bounding
surface model for the analysis of earthquake induced liquefaction phenomena.
In: 4th International conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering.
Paper No. 1443; 2007.
[9] Yang Z, Elgamal A, Parra E. A computational model for liquefaction and
associated shear deformation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE
2003;129(12):1119–27.
[10] Elgamal A, Yang Z, Parra E. Computational modeling of cyclic mobility and post
liquefaction site response. Soil dyn Earthquake Eng 2002;22(4):259–71.
[11] Elgamal A, Yang Z, Parra E, Ragheb A. Modeling of cyclic mobility in saturated
cohesionless soils. Int J Plast 2003;19:883–905.
[12] Taiebat M, Shahir H, Pak A. Study of pore pressure variation during
liquefaction using two constitutive models for sand. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2007;27:60–72.
[13] Dafalias YF, Manzari MT. Simple plasticity sand model accounting for fabric
change effects. J Eng Mech 2004;130(6):622–34.
[14] Jeremic B, Cheng Z, Taiebat M, Dafalias YF. Numerical simulation of fully
saturated porous materials. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech
2008;32(13):1635–60.
[15] Shahir H, Pak A, Taiebat M, Boris Jeremic. Evaluation of variation of
permeability in liquefiable soil under earthquake loading. Comput Geotech
2012;40:74–88.
[16] Taboada VM, Dobry R. Experimental results of model no. p. 1 at RPI’’, In:
Arulanandan K, Scott RF, editors. Verification of numerical procedures for the
analysis of soil liquefaction problems. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema; 1993. p. 3–18.
[17] Dashti Sh. Toward developing an engineering procedure for evaluating
building performance on softened ground, PhD Thesis. Berkeley: University
of California; 2009.
[18] Gonzalez L, Abdoun T, Sharp MK. Modeling of seismically induced liquefaction
under high confining stress. Int J Phys Model Geotech 2002;2(3):1–15.
[19] Ishihara K. Review of the predictions for model 1 in the VELACS program. In:
Arulanandan K, Scott RF, editors. Verification of numerical procedures for the
analysis of soil liquefaction problems. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema; 1994. p.
1353–1368.
[20] Schofield AN. Dynamic and earthquake centrifuge geotechnical modeling. In:
Proceeding of international conference on recent advances in geotechnical
earthquake engineering and soil dynamics. University of Missouri-Rolla, Mo.;
1981. p. 1081–1100.
[21] Arulanandan K, Sybico J. Post-liquefaction settlement of sand. In: Proceeding
of the wroth memorial symposium. England: Oxford University; 1992.
[22] Balakrishnan A. Liquefaction remediation at a bridge site, PhD dissertation.
Davis University of California; 2000.
[23] Aubertin M, Bussière B, Chapuis RP. Hydraulic conductivity of homogenized
tailings from hard rock mines. Can Geotech J 1996;33:470–82.
[24] Ghassemi A, Pak A. Pore scale study of permeability and tortuosity for flow
through particulate media using Lattice Boltzmann method. Int J Numer Anal
Meth Geomech 2011;35(8):886–901.
[25] Brady MM, Kunkel LA. A practical technique for quantifying drainage porosity.
In: Proceedings of 2003 petroleum hydrocarbons and organic chemicals in
ground water: prevention, assessment, and remediation, Costa Mesa, USA; 20–
22 August, 2003.
[26] McWorter DB, Sunada DK. Groundwater hydrology and hydraulics. Ft.
Collins: Water Resources Publications; 1977.
 H. Shahir et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 211–223
[27] Das BM. Advanced soil mechanics. 3rd ed. Taylor & Francis; 2008.
[28] Ha I.S., Park Y.H., Kim M.M. (2003). Dissipation Pattern of Excess Pore Pressure
after Liquefaction in Saturated Sand Deposits, Transportation Research Record
1821, paper No. 03–3655.
[29] Su D, Li X, Xing F. Estimation of the apparent permeability in the dynamic
centrifuge tests. Geotech Test J 2009;32(1). Paper ID GTJ100972.
[30] Zienkiewicz OC, Shiomi T. Dynamic behavior of saturated porous media; the
generalized Biot formulation and its numerical solution. Int J Numer Meth Eng
1984;8:71–96.
[31] Manzari MT, Dafalias YF. A critical state two-surface plasticity model for sands.
Geotechnique 1997;47(2):255–72.
[32] Dafalias YF. Bounding surface plasticity. I: Mathematical foundation and
hypoplasticity. J Eng 1986;112(9):966–87.
223
[33] Schofield AN, Wroth CP. Critical state soil mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill;
1968.
[34] Richart FE, Hall JR, Woods RD. Vibrations of soils and foundations. Englewood
cliffs, New Jersy: Prentice Hall; 1970. 414 pp.
[35] Been K, Jefferies MG. A state parameter for sands. Geotechnique
1985;35(2):99–112.
[36] Shahir H, Pak A. Estimating liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow
foundations by numerical approach. Comput Geotech 2010;37:267–79.
[37] Arulmoli K, Muraleetharan KK, Hossain MM, Fruth LS. VELACS Laboratory
testing program: soil data report. The Earth Technology Corporation; 1992.
[38] Rahmani A, Ghasemi Fare O, Pak A. Investigation of the influence of
permeability coefficient on the numerical modeling of the liquefaction
phenomenon. ScientiaIranica 2012;19(2):179–87.