Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 44, No. 4, October 2017  pp. 377-383 No. 44-36

Numerical and experimental simulation of liquefaction for scenario earthquake

P. Kamatchi*,, M. Gayathri** and M. Dilna**
 Email: kamat@serc.res.in

*CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Center, CSIR Campus, Taramani, Chennai - 600 113, India
**Rajalakshmi Engineering College, Chennai - 602 105, India

Received: 30 May 2017; Accepted: 09 August 2017

In this paper, numerical simulation of liquefaction has been done and comparisons are made with the results from
experiment on shake table. Properties of river sand sample which are required for numerical simulations are obtained
through laboratory tests. Scenario earthquake is artificially generated with seismological parameters of Mw 7.6 Bhuj
earthquake January 2001 and numerical simulations are carried out using OpenSeesPL computer program. The excess
pore pressure ratios, shear stress-strain histories and stress paths are studied. River sand sample passing through 1.18
mm sieve is filled in Perspex glass box for a dimension of 1.15 m × 1 m × 0.54 m and tested on shake table. A model
frame of 7 storey building is placed in the soil specimen and instrumented for the observation of settlement. The
time of occurrence of liquefaction observed from numerical simulation is 4.8s and found to be in agreement with the
observation from the experiment on shake table. Further, the acceleration response at 110 mm from base observed in the
experiment and numerical simulation are compared and are found to be in good agreement. This study, demonstrates
the applicability of numerical simulations in prediction of liquefaction phenomenon and dynamic response analysis of
typical soil sites for scenario earthquakes.

Keywords: Liquefaction; experiment on shake table; numerical simulation; scenario earthquake.

Number of studies are reported in literature on post
earthquake damage due to liquefaction1-4. Damages
occurred during Mw 7.6 Bhuj earthquake, January
2001 in the form of ground deformation and settlement
of foundation are reported by Rastogi5 and Dash, et
al.6,7. Various studies on laboratory experiments and
numerical simulation of liquefaction are also reported in
literature8-14. In the present study, numerical simulation
of liquefaction has been done and the comparisons are
made with the results from experiment on shake table.
Experimental and numerical simulation of liquefaction
phenomenon are carried out for an artificial ground
motion simulated at Kandla port for a scenario
earthquake of Mw 7.6 with seismological parameters
of Bhuj 2001 earthquake. Through different tests
carried out at laboratory, properties of the sample viz.,
specific gravity, relative density, permeability, grain
size distribution and unit weight, are determined for
the chosen sample. Three dimensional finite element
modelling of soil specimen is subjected to earthquake
shaking in OpenSeesPL computer program15 and the
time history dynamic response of the soil specimen
from numerical simulations are studied. To simulate
the settlement of building during liquefaction, a typical
model frame has been placed in the liquefiable soil set
up on shake table and the horizontal displacement and
vertical settlement are observed during experiment for
the scenario earthquake.
Properties of sample
Properties of sample which are required for numerical
simulation are estimated through laboratory
experiments. Grain size distribution test of the sample
was carried out through mechanical sieve analysis for
1 kg of sample passing through 1.18 mm sieve size

Journal of Structural Engineering 377

Vol. 44, No. 4, October - Novemeber 2017
and percentage finer values are estimated. For 600,
300, 150, 75 micron sieves the % finer values are 51%,
18%, 4%, 0%, respectively. From the gradation curve,
sample chosen has been classified as uniformly graded.
The relative density of the sample has been estimated
as 50.1% from natural, maximum and minimum void
ratios. The specific gravity, average permeability and
angle of internal friction of the sample are given
in Table 1. The shear modulus, bulk modulus and
combined bulk modulus of the sample are estimated
through analytical expressions and given in Table 1.
proposed by Motazedian and Atkinson22. Ground
motions are simulated for latitude and longitude of
Kandla port site for rock outcrop as given in Fig. 1. Peak
ground acceleration of the ground motion simulated is
0.49g which is in close agreement with the maximum
acceleration value reported for the main shock of Mw
7.6 for stress drop of 200 bars reported by Singh, et
al.21, for Kandla port site. Present study do not include
wave propagation effects and the rock outcrop ground
motions are used typically for the experimental and
numerical analysis.

Table 1 0.6

Acceleration (g)
0.4
Properties of the sample through laboratory 0.2
0
experiments -0.2
Properties Test Results -0.4
-0.6
Relative density (Dr) 50.1 % 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec)
Maximum void ratio (emax) 0.795
Fig. 1 Artificial ground motion time history for the scenario
Minimum void ratio (emin) 0.472 earthquake of Mw 7.6 simulated at Kandla port with focal
Void ratio (e) 0.633 parameters of Bhuj 2001 earthquake
Maximum unit weight (γmax) 16.87 kN/m³
Minimum unit weight (γmin) 13.93kN/m³ Table 2
Unit weight (γ) 14 kN/m3 Seismological parameters for the simulation
Angle of internal friction (f) 34.4º of Bhuj 2001 earthquake

Confining pressure 100 kPa Parameter Value Parameter Value

Shear modulus (Gmax) 6.186e4 kPa Sub fault width
Fault strike 660 8.25
(km)
Bulk modulus (K) 1.34e5 kPa
hypocenter at sub
Combined bulk modulus 3.46e5 kPa Fault dip 640 34
fault
Permeability 5.42e-5 m/s Fault depth to
Specific gravity 2.59 10 Magnitude 7.6
upper edge (km)
Fault length (km) 44 FFT points 4096
Scenario earthquake Fault width (km) 33 dt (sec) 0.02
Shear wave
Due to the scarcity of recorded ground motions,
velocity of rock
generation of site-specific artificial strong motions Latitude of source 23.410
near the source (β)
3.6
using stochastic models by identifying major fault (km/sec)
zones and propagating seismic waves generated at Longitude of
70.180 Density (ρ), g/cm3 2.85
these potential sources to the sites of interest is well source
accepted in literature16,17. In this process, path effects Latitude of site 23.030 Pulsing percentage 25
and anelastic attenuation effects predicted by the Longitude of site 70.220 Stress drop (bars) 200
empirical and theoretical models18 are used. For source No. of sub faults
5 fmax (Hz) 35
representation, point source models19 or finite source along strike
models20 are widely used. In this paper, artificial ground No. of sub faults
4 Q0 508.00f0.48
motions are generated for Mw 7.6 earthquake with along dip
parameters21 of Bhuj earthquake as given in Table 2, Sub fault length Saragoni Hart
8.8
using extended finite source stochastic model (EXSIM) (km) window

378 Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 44, No. 4, October - Novemeber 2017
Numerical analysis 2.00

presssure (kPa)
Excess pore
1.50
The numerical simulation reported in this paper is 1.00
carried out using open source computational platform 0.50
0.00
OpenSees23 with the graphical user-interface24 0 5 10 15 20 25
“OpenSeesPL”. In OpenseesPL, both 8-4 node (8- Time (s)
solid translational degrees of freedom with 4 corner (a)

nodes describing fluid pressure), 20-8 node (20- solid 3.00

presssure (kPa)
Excess pore
translational degrees of freedom with 8 corner nodes 2.00

describing fluid pressure) effective stress fully coupled 1.00

(solid-fluid) 3D brick elements are implemented24. In 0.00
the present study, 8-4 node brick elements are adopted 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (s)
for all the simulations. The soil model of size 1.15m (b)
× 1m × 0.54 m is created and is subjected to one 2.50

presssure (kPa)
simulation of artificial ground motion generated for 2.00

Excess pore
1.50
the scenario earthquake of Mw 7.6 simulated at Kandla 1.00
port with focal parameters of Bhuj 2001 earthquake. 0.50
0.00
Rigid box boundary condition is adopted for the 0 5 10 15 20 25
numerical study simulating the Perspex box used for Time (s)
(c)
experiment. The deformation contour mesh of sample
6.00
from numerical model of the soil sample during the
presssure (kPa)
Excess pore 4.00
initiation of occurrence of liquefaction when the excess
pore pressure ratio approaches 1 at 4.8s is shown in 2.00

Fig. 2. Excess pore pressure time histories at different 0.00

0 5 10 15 20 25
depths from surface are given in Fig. 3. It can be seen Time (s)
that the maximum excess pore pressure sets at around (d)
5s which lasts upto 10 s then drops. The shear stress 8.00
presssure (kPa)
Excess pore

6.00
and strain variation along different depths are shown 4.00
in Fig. 4. From Fig. 4 maximum shear stress and shear 2.00
strain are observed near the base. Shear stress path 0.00
and the variation of shear stress with mean effective 0 5 10
Time (s)
15 20 25

stress at different depths are shown in Fig. 5. From (e)

Fig. 5 consolidation is observed at top layers and Fig. 3 Excess pore pressure time histories at different depths
consolidation and dilation both are observed at 0.548m from surface (a)0.108m (b) 0.216m (c)0.323m (d)0.431m
bottom most layer. (e)0.55m

Model for experiment

The experimental study on liquefaction is done on
shake table of size 2m × 2m at advanced seismic testing
laboratory of CSIR-Structural Engineering Research
center located at Chennai, India. Sand sample for
liquefaction experiment is filled in a perspex box of
size 1.15m × 1m × 0.9 m (Fig. 6) for a depth of 0.54 m
and saturated with water. Model frame of the building
with the typical seven stories is fabricated by using
wooden boards of size 600 mm × 600mm × 16mm as
Fig. 2 Deformation contour mesh of liquefaction at 4.8s
slab and reinforcement bars of 10 mm diameter to be

Journal of Structural Engineering 379

Vol. 44, No. 4, October - Novemeber 2017
acting as columns as shown in Fig. 6. The test set up the scenario earthquake of Mw 7.6 simulated at Kandla
is instrumented with accelerometers, dynamic pressure port with focal parameters of Bhuj 2001 earthquake
transducers and laser based displacement measuring and the acceleration responses at different levels are
Optho NCDT instruments and connected to data obtained. During the experiment liquefaction got
acquisition system (Fig. 7). initiated in the first 5 seconds as shown in Fig. 8. The
settlements, horizontal displacement and acceleration at
20.00
top floor of model frame are shown in Fig. 9. Variation
Shear stress (kPa)

15.00
10.00 in the settlement of the two edges of the frame indicates
5.00
0.00
the order of tilting of building which is a typical
-5.00 failure mode due to liquefaction. The peak values of
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
response of the structural model are recorded through
Shear strain (%)
(a) instruments and are given in Table 3. The comparison
20.00 of acceleration response from experiment and from
Shear stress (kPa)

15.00 numerical analysis at 110 mm from base is given in

10.00
5.00
Fig. 10. The peak ground acceleration(PGA) observed
0.00 from experiment is in close agreement with the PGA
-5.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
from numerical simulation.
Shear strain (%)
10.00

Shear stress (kPa)

(b) 8.00
20.00 6.00
Shear stress (kPa)

4.00
15.00 2.00
10.00 0.00
5.00 -2.00
0.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
-5.00 Mean effective stress (kPa)
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 (a)
Shear strain (%)
10.00
Shear stress (kPa)

(c) 8.00
25.00 6.00
Shear stress (kPa)

20.00 4.00
15.00 2.00
10.00 0.00
5.00 -2.00
0.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
-5.00 Mean effective stress (kPa)
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
(b)
Shear strain (%)
10.00
Shear stress (kPa)

(d) 8.00
Fig. 4 Shear stress-strain at different depths from surface 6.00
4.00
(a) 0.085m (b) 0.193m (c) 0.305 (d) 0.548m 2.00
0.00
-2.00
Two numbers of accelerometers are placed at 11 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
cm and 28 cm from the bottom of the soil to measure Mean effective stress (kPa)
(c)
acceleration response. Three Optho NCDT instruments
viz., two for measuring vertical displacement and one 10.00
Shear stress (kPa)

8.00
for measuring horizontal settlement are used as shown 6.00
4.00
in Fig. 7 for measurement of settlement and horizontal 2.00
displacement of model frame during shaking. 0.00
-2.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Results from experiment Mean effective stress (kPa)
(d)
The perspex glass box with sand and model frame is Fig. 5 Stress path at different depths from surface (a) 0.085m
exited with the artificial ground motion generated for (b) 0.193m (c) 0.305 (d) 0.548m

380 Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 44, No. 4, October - Novemeber 2017
 15
10

Displacement (mm)
5

-5

-10
-15
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec)
(a) Horizontal displacement
8
6

Displacement (mm)
4
2
0
-2
Fig. 6 Sand in perspex box with model frame on shake table
-4
-6
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec)
(b) Vertical displacement at 3rd floor level - left side
4
3
Displacement (mm)

2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
0 10 5 15 20 25
Time (sec)
(c) Vertical displacement at 3rd floor level – right side

Fig. 7 Instrumentation set up (left side) 6

Acceleration (m/sec2)

4
2

0
Left side

-2

-4

-6
0 510 15 20 25
Time (sec)
(d) Acceleration response at top floor of test model
Fig. 9 Time history response measured from experiment on model
Fig. 8 Occurrence of liquefaction
frame

Journal of Structural Engineering 381

Vol. 44, No. 4, October - Novemeber 2017
 Table 3 soil are studied. The shear stress, strain and stress path
Peak values of response parameters from are observed for different depths of soil stratum.
experiment A model frame simulating a seven storey building
Parameter Peak values has been placed in the liquefiable soil set up on
Settlement of model frame measured at shake table and the horizontal displacement, vertical
4.41 mm
3rd floor - left side settlement and acceleration responses are observed
Settlement of model frame measured at during experiment for the scenario earthquake. This
6.46 mm
3rd floor – right side methodology followed in the present study can be
Horizontal displacement of model adopted to estimate the performance of the buildings
13 mm
frame measured at 5th floor and possible settlement under liquefaction during future
Acceleration response measured at 1st
0.507 g earthquakes. Further, the possibility of occurrence
floor level of model frame of liquefaction phenomenon, maximum strains and
Acceleration response measured at 3rd displacements can be estimated through numerical
0.594 g
floor level of model frame
simulations as reported in the present study.
Acceleration response measured at 7th
0.468 g
floor level of model frame
Acknowledgement
Acceleration(m/s2)

6.00
4.00 110mm from base This paper is being published with the kind permission
2.00
0.00 of the Director, Prof. Santosh Kapuria CSIR-SERC.
-2.00 The authors are thankful to Dr. K. Balaji Rao,
Advisor[M], Dr. N. Gopalakrishnan, Chief scientist,
-4.00
-6.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 Dr. K. Ramanjaneyulu, Chief scientist, Smt. R. Sreekala
Time (sec) Principal scientist and technical staff of Advanced
(a) Acceleration response from Open Sees PL
seismic testing and research laboratory, CSIR-SERC
for the encouragement and support extended during the
Acceleration(m/s2)

6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
-2.00
-4.00
-6.00
0 5 10 15
Time (sec)
(b) Acceleration response from shake table test
Fig. 10 Comparison of acceleration response from numerical
analysis and from experiment
Conclusions
In the present study, experimental and numerical
simulation of liquefaction phenomenon are carried out
for an artificial ground motion simulated at Kandla port
of Gujarat for a scenario earthquake of Mw 7.6 with
seismological parameters of Bhuj 2001 earthquake. As
it has been simulated in the three dimensional finite
element model, liquefaction phenomenon occured at
around 4.8sec during experiment. The acceleration
response of the soil model during shaking from
experiment and numerical simulation are compared
and found to be in good agreement. The variation of
excess pore pressure with time at different depths of
110mm from base
work reported in this paper. First author acknowledges
Prof. Ahmed Elgamal, USA for providing ‘OpenSeesPL’
program for carrying out numerical simulations.
20 25
References
1. Khan, M.A., Abbast, I.A., Hadi, S., Laghari, A.
and Bilham, R., “Bhuj earthquake of January 26,
2001: Effects in the Thar-Nagar Parkar region of
Sindh SE Pakistan”, Geological Bulletin Univ.
Peshawar, Vol. 35, 2002 pp 9–26.
2. Rathje, E.M., Kelson, K., Ashford, A., Kawamata,
Y., Towhata, I., Kokusho, T. and Barder, J.P.,
“Geotechnical Aspects of the 2004 Niigata Ken
Chuetsu, Japan Earthquake” Earthquake spectra,
Vol. 22, (S1) 2006, pp S23–S46.
3. Ishihara, K., “Liquefaction of Subsurface Soils
During Earthquakes”, Jl. of Disaster Res., Vol. 1,
(2), 2006, pp 245–261.
4. Huang, Y. and Yu, M., “Review of soil liquefaction
characteristics during major earthquakes of the
twenty-first century” Nat Hazards. Vol. 65, 2013,
pp 2375–2384.

382 Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 44, No. 4, October - Novemeber 2017
5. Rastogi, B.K., “Ground deformation study of Mw
7.7 Bhuj earthquake of 2001”, Episodes, Vol. 24,
(3) 2001, pp 160–165.
6. Dash, S.R., Govindaraju, L. and Bhattacharya, S.,
“On the probable cause of the failure of Kandla
port and customs office tower during the 2001 Bhuj
earthquake”, The 14th World Conf. on Earthquake
Engg., October 12-17, 2008, Beijing China.
7. Dash, S.R., Govindaraju, L. and Bhattacharya,
S., “A case study of damages of the Kandla port
tower supported on a Mat-Pile foundation in
liquefied soils under the 2001 Bhuj earthquake”,
Soil Dyn. and Earthquake Engg., Vol. 29, 2009,
pp 333–346.
8. Elgamal, A-W., Yang, Z., “Numerical modelling
of liquefaction-induced lateral spreading”, 12th
World Conf. on Earthquake Engg., Paper No.
2817, 2000.
9. Mitsuji, K., “Numerical simulations for
development of liquefaction countermeasures by
use of partially saturated sand”, The 14th World
Conf. on Earthquake Engg., October 12-17 2008
Beijing China, 2008.
10. Elgamal, A-W., Lu, J. and Forcellini, D., “Mitigation
of liquefaction-induced lateral deformation in
a sloping stratum: three-dimensional numerical
simulation”, Jl. of Geotech. and Geoenvir. Engg.,
ASCE., Vol. 135, (11), 2009, pp 1672–1682.
11. Shahir, H. and Pak, A., “Estimating liquefaction
induced settlement of shallow foundation by
numerical approach”, Comp. and Geotech., Vol.
37, 2010, pp 267–279.
12. Mhaske, S.Y. and Deepankar, C., “GIS-based soil
liquefaction susceptibility map of Mumbai city
for earthquake events”, Jl. of Appl. Geophy., Vol.
70, (3), 2010, pp 216–225.
13. Wang, B., Zen, K., Chen, G.Q. and Kasama, K.,
“Effects of excess pore pressure dissipation on
liquefaction-induced ground deformation in 1-g
shaking table test”, Geomech. and Engg., Vol. 4,
(2), 2012, pp 91–103.
14. Maharjan, M. and Takahashi, A., “Centrifuge
model tests on liquefaction-induced settlement
and pore water migration in non-homogeneous
soil deposits”, Soil dyn. and Earthquake Engg.,
Vol. 55, 2013, pp 161–169.
15. Lu, J., Yang, Z. and Elgamal, A., “OpenSeesPL 3D
lateral pile-ground interaction user’s manual”,
University of California San Diego USA, 2010.
16. Boore, D.M., “Stochastic simulation of high
frequency ground motions based on seismological
models of the radiated spectra”, Bull. Seism. Soc.
Am., Vol. 73, (6), 1983, pp 1865–1894.
17. Boore, D.M., “Simulation of ground motion using
the stochastic method”, Pure App. Geophy., Vol.
160, (3-4), 2003, pp 635–676.
18. Beresnev, I.A. and Atkinson, G.M., “Source
parameters of earthquakes in eastern and western
north America based on finite fault modeling”,
Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., Vol. 92, (2), 2002, pp 695–
710.
19. Boore, D.M. and Atkinson, G.M., “Stochastic
prediction of ground motion and spectral response
at hard-rock sites in Eastern North America”, Bull.
Seism. Soc. Am., Vol. 77, (2), 1987, pp 440–467.
20. Hartzell, S.H., “Earthquake aftershocks as Green’s
functions” Geophy. Res. Lett., Vol. 5, (1), 1978, pp
1-4.
21. Singh, S.K., Bansal, B.K., Bhattacharya, S.N.,
Pacheco, J.F., Dattatrayam, R.S., Ordaz, M,
Suresh, G.K. and Hough, S.E., “Estimation of
ground motion for Bhuj, (26 January 2001, Mw
7.6) and for future earthquakes in India”, Bull.
Seism. Soc. Am., Vol. 93, (1), 2003, pp 353–370.
22. Motazedian, D. and Atkinson, G.M., “Stochastic
Finite-Fault Modeling Based on a Dynamic
Corner Frequency”, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., Vol.
95, (3), 2005, pp 995–1010.
23. Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F. and Fenves, G.L.,
“Open system for earthquake engineering
simulation user manual”, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, 2006, (http://opensees.
berkeley.edu/).
24. Lu, J., “Parallel finite element modeling of
earthquake site response and liquefaction”, PhD
Thesis, University of California San Diego La
Jolla CA, 2006.
(Discussion on this article must reach the editor before
January 31, 2018)
Journal of Structural Engineering 383
Vol. 44, No. 4, October - Novemeber 2017