Effects of Excess Pore Pressure Redistribution in Liquefiable Layers

Existing simplified procedures for evaluating soil liquefaction potential or for estimating excess pore pressures during earthquakes are typically based on undrained cyclic tests performed on saturated soil samples under controlled loading and boundary conditions. Under such conditions, the effect of excess pore pressure ($u_e$) dissipation and redistribution to neighboring soil layers cannot be accounted for. Existing simplified procedures treat liquefiable layers as isolated soil layers without any boundary conditions even if dense and loose layers are very thin, permeable, and adjacent to each other. However, redistribution is likely to increase and decrease $u_e$ in the neighboring dense and loose layers respectively. Until now, no procedure short of fully coupled numerical analysis is available to estimate the importance of redistribution. This paper presents an approximate analytical procedure for assessing the effects of $u_e$ redistribution in (1) soil layers that would have liquefied if they were undrained, and (2) soil layers that would have not liquefied even if undrained. It is found that a layer that is initially assumed liquefied under undrained conditions might not even liquefy accounting for the $u_e$ redistribution to neighboring layers. On the other hand, a layer initially assumed to not liquefy can develop significant $u_e$ and can even liquefy due to pore pressure migration from the neighboring layers. Thus, accounting for redistributed $u_e$ is important for liquefaction consequence assessment quantification, particularly in systems that span the depth of these effects like deep foundations. Migration of u toward the tip of a pile can reduce its capacity, even if the tip is embedded in a dense sand layer. On the other hand, if redistribution can result in the reduction of $u_e$ in initially assumed liquefied layers, risks associated with liquefaction might be avoided. A criterion is also developed to evaluate the thicknesses of a layer below which redistribution could prevent liquefaction even if the layer is deemed liquefied according to the existing liquefaction-triggering procedures. Finally, the proposed procedure is illustrated by application to selected shaking events of centrifuge tests involving liquefaction of layered soil profiles. The predictions from the procedure matched the centrifuge test results reasonably.