Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned fromthe 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, March 1-4, 2012, Tokyo, Japan

INFLUENCE OF THE EARTHQUAKE MOTIONCHARACTERISTICS ON THE GROUNDSETTLEMENT BEHAVIOR DUE TO LIQUEFACTION

Shunichi HIGUCHI1and Joji EJIRI2
1

Senior Research Engineer, Department of Structural Engineering,Technical Research Institute of OBAYASHI Co. Tokyo, Japan, higuchi.shunichi@obayashi.co.jp
2
Chief Engineer, Department of Structural Engineering,Technical Research Institute of OBAYASHI Co. Tokyo, Japan, joji.ejiri@obayashi.co.jp

ABSTRACT: Influences of the earthquake motion characteristics, such as peakacceleration amplitude, duration or wave form, on the settlement of ground occurred afterliquefaction is described in this paper. Firstly, results of a series of centrifuge
experiments are presented. Secondly, improvement of the effective stress analysis
program in terms of the re-consolidation characteristics after liquefaction is discussed.
Finally, ground settlement during the Great East Japan earthquake is simulated utilizing
the program.
Key Words: Great East Japan earthquake, liquefaction, settlement, centrifuge experiment,
effective stress analysis

INTRODUCTION
Severe damages were reported around Tokyo bay area during the Great East Japan earthquake,occurred on 11th of March, 2011. In spite of moderate peak acceleration of the ground motions (NIED
2011a), severe damages on infrastructure due to liquefaction were found especially on reclaimed landaround Tokyo bay (JGS 2011b), and affected to recovery. Many researchers pointed out that severeliquefaction damages were partly due to the long duration of the earthquake motion. Therefore, thisresearch focuses on the influence of earthquake motion characteristics, such as peak acceleration,
duration or wave form, on the settlement of ground due to liquefaction.
Researches on the post-liquefaction settlement behavior of sandy ground have been performed bymany researchers based on laboratory tests (Nagase 1988, Yoshida 1994). Ishihara et.al (1992)
proposed a practical method to predict the post-liquefaction settlement in terms of the maximum shear
strain of the liquefied sand strata experienced during the earthquake. Numerical research efforts werealso performed, however, it is suggested many technical issues need to be improved for quantitative
prediction on this problem. The code verification performed by the Earthquake Engineering
Committee of JSCE is one of the major works (JSCE 2003), and pointed out there is large variation interms of predicted settlements by numerical procedures at present.

789

In this paper, firstly, results of a series of centrifuge experiments, reproduced liquefaction undervarious earthquake motions on ideal ground condition are presented (Ikeda 2006). Secondly,
improvement of the effective stress analysis program in terms of the re-consolidation characteristics
after liquefaction is discussed (Higuchi 2007). Finally, ground settlement during the Great East Japan
earthquake is simulated utilizing this program.

CENTRIFUGE EXPERIMENT
Test Procedure
Shake table tests were carried out under the 40g (392m/s2) centrifugal gravity utilizing Obayashi
centrifuge, which equips 2.2m x1.07m shake table (Matsuda 2002).
Fig. 1 shows the profile of the model ground and the layout of instruments. Model sand deposit isconsisted of #7 silica sand (D50=0.15mm) with Dr=50%, which is pluviated into the lamina container
through the pore fluid. Methylcellulose solution (40mPa*s) is used as pore fluid to satisfy thesimilitude of pore water dissipation. Dimensions of the model ground are 440mm long, 300mm inwidth and 315mm deep, which equivalent to 17.6 m long, 12m in with and 12.6m deep respectively in
prototype scale.(Without any notice, discussion will be referred at the prototype scale, hereafter.) Notethat the depth of the sand deposit is 11.6m (290mm). Accelerometers and pore pressure transducers are
instrumented in the ground. Ground settlements are measured by the laser displacement transducers atfour point of the ground surface.
After finishing the model ground preparation, pre-consolidation process (on-flight self weightconsolidation) is performed under 40g centrifugal gravity.
Table 1 shows summary of parameters of the shake table tests. Each relative density Dr on thetable is derived from prepared ground model measurement, as well as Max. Acceleration values are
performed peak acceleration observed at the shake table tests.
Because this experiment is focused on the characteristics of input motions, 2 different input
motions are chosen, as shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b). One is the Port Island motion (CDIT 1997),
representative motion among the inland earthquake, and the other is Akita motion (JGA 2000),
representative motion among the plate boundary earthquake. Duration of Port Island motion is about
20s (second; hereafter), and that of Akita motion is about 80s. 4 experiments were performed, twice oneach input motion, as shown in Table 1. The maximum acceleration amplitude is chosen as level 2(Severe Earthquake; L2, hereafter) and level 1 (Operation Earthquake; L1, hereafter) motion.

Accelerometer

Pore pressure transducer

Displacement transducer

Fig. 1 Profile of the centrifuge model ground and the layout of instruments(Model scale: mm)

790

2

Acceleration (m/s )

6
4
2
0
-2 0
-4
-6

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100
(sec)

2

Acceleration (m/s )(a) Port Island (Recorded L-2 motion)
6
4
2
0
-2 0
-4
-6

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100
(sec)

(a) Akita (Recorded L-2 motion)
Fig. 2 Time histories of input motions
Case
Input motion
Duration (s)Relative density Dr (%)
Max. Acceleration (m/s2)

Table 1 Summary of test conditions
1(PI-L2)
2(PI-L1)
3(Akita-L2)
4(Akita-L1)
Port island
Akita
20
80
58.5
43.1
48.2
52.7
4.85
2.00
3.11
1.60

Test Results
Final settlements of the ground surface recorded during the centrifuge experiments are summarized inTable 2. Settlements are measured at 4 point around the center of the model ground, and average
number is shown in the Table. Settlements observed at Akita motion, which has longer duration, arelarger than that of observed at Port Island motion, which show larger peak acceleration, on both L1and L2 shake event.
Table 2 Ground surface settlement
Case
1(PI-L2)
2(PI-L1)
3(Akita-L2)
4(Akita-L1)
Input motion
Port Island
Akita
Ground settlement (cm)
29
12
32
17
Time histories of the ground surface settlement and maximum excess pore water pressure ratio(PPR, hereafter) at the depth of GL=-6.0m are shown in Figure 3 and Fig. 4, respectively.
Liquefaction is defined as condition as PPR>0.95, and PPR is defined as follows,
PPR=∆u/σv’(1)
in which, ∆u: excess pore water pressure, σv’: overburden effective stress, respectively.
Settlement time histories stabilized about 1,000s after the shake event at the L1 motions, whilethese still move at the L2 motions. Compared the shape of the settlement time histories with that of the
PPR time histories, it is seen that as the period of duration of PPR dissipation is longer, larger final
settlement is performed, instead of Case 1.
To investigate the liquefaction extent in the ground, PPR distributions throughout the sand deposit
are compared as Fig. 5. It is seen that liquefaction is occurred at any depth in both Case 1 (PI-L2) andCase 3 (Akita-L2), which correspond to the L2 motions. In cases of using L1 motions, Case 2 (PI-L1)
and Case 4 (Akita-L1), PPR<0.95 are seen at deep part of the sand deposit in Case 2.
Maximum shear strain distribution throughout the sand deposit is shown in Fig. 6. Shear strain of791

each sand layer is calculated utilizing the acceleration time histories recorded at the tests. Same aspreviously described by Ishihara, as larger the maximum shear strain, ground settlement become
bigger. Although the largest strain is seen in Case2 (PI-L2) at the bottom, average shear strain
throughout the sand deposit is bigger in Case4 (Akita-L2), at which the largest settlement occurred.
0

500

1000

(sec)
2000

1500

Settlement (cm)

0
-10
-20
-30
PI-L2

PI-L1

Akita-L2

Akita-L1-40

Excess Pore Water
Pressure Ratio

Fig. 3 Time histories of ground surface settlement
1.5
PI-L2

PI-L1

Akita-L2

Akita-L1

1
0.5
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000
(sec)

Fig. 4 Time histories of PPR (GL=-6.0m)-2Depth (m)

-4

0.9

PPR
0.95

1

0

1.05

Maximum shear strain (%)
1
2
3
4
5

0

PI-L2
PI-L1
Akita-L2
Akita-L1-2-4
Depth (m)

0.85
0

-6

PI-L2
-6

Akita-L2

-8

-8

-10

-10

-12

-12

Fig.5 Maximum PPR distribution
throughout the sand deposit

PI-L1
Akita-L1

Fig.6 Maximum shear strain distribution
throughout the sand deposit

IMPROVEMENT OF THE EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS PROGRAM
Settlement behavior of the liquefied sandy ground was simulated utilizing the dynamic effective stressanalysis program. The program was improved by adopting the volumetric compression model afterliquefaction, which is affected by the accumulated shear strain of sand deposit during un-drained
cyclic shear process. Applicability of the improved program is discussed by simulating the centrifuge
experiments conducted previously described.

792

Effective stress analysis program
The dynamic effective stress analysis program, named “EFECT” developed by Ito, et.al (1995) isutilized. This program is based on the dynamic characteristics of porous media developed by Biot
(1962). Matsuoka’s constitutive model for sand and clay (1987) is adopted as the constitutive model ofsand, as well as introducing parameters for concerning the cyclic loading process.
Post liquefaction settlement model
Re-consolidation volumetric strain model proposed by Sento, et.al (2004) is adopted for the dynamic
effective stress program, described above. This model is based on the relation between the volumetriccompression characteristics and the experienced un-drained cyclic shear process evaluated by the
re-consolidation test after liquefaction. Followings are major characteristics of the model.
(a) It is experimentally found that post-liquefaction re-consolidation characteristics of sand aresimilar to the normal consolidation process.
(b) Accumulated shear strain is used as an index to characterize the post-liquefaction volumetriccompression.
Table 3 shows comparison of the total volumetric strain during post-liquefaction re-consolidation
evaluated by the adopted model and the compression model originally adopted on the program“EFECT”. Test calculation results of volumetric strain accumulation are also shown. Schematic
drawings of the volume change process during and after liquefaction by each evaluation model
are shown in Fig. 7.
Table 3 Total volumetric strain during post-liquefaction re-consolidation
Model
Adopted model
EFECT (Sand)3)
dε v =

Volumetricstrain increment

0.434C c dp
1 + e0 p + p i

dε v =

Cc
1 + e01 dp
pa 2 p1

dε v : Volumetric straindε v : Volumetric strain

increment
Cc :Compression index

increment
Cc :Compression index

e0 : Initial void ratio
p :Normal effective stresse0 : Initial void ratio
p :Normal effective stressp i :New parameterp 0 :Initial effective stressp a :Atmospheric pressure( = 98kPa )Post-liquefaction
volumetric strain
accumulation(p＝0 through p0)
Test calculation results ofvolumetric strain
accumulation(p0=98kPa)

0.434C c dp
ε v = ∫0p0
1 + e0 p + p i=

 p + pi Cclog10  0

1 + e0 pi 

5 (pi=10-5kPa)
1 (pi=10kPa)

ε v = ∫0p0=

Cc
1 + e0Cc
1 + e01

1 dp
pa 2 pp0pa

1 (pa=98kPa)

A new parameter pi, defined as eq. (2) is introduced to evaluate the volumetric strain relate withthe experienced shear strain during the cyclic shear. Parameter x in eq. (2) is defined as eq. (3), which
related with the accumulated shear strain. Accumulated shear strain defined as eq. (4) is introduced as
the experienced shear index in this model. Therefore, as larger the shear process experienced, larger
volumetric strain is evaluated.

793

pi = p 0 × 10 − x
aγ acmx=
1 + γ acm / b

(2)
(3)

Here, a and b are parameters to fit the volumetric change characteristics of sand.
tγ acn = ∫ γ& (t ) dt

(4)0Here, γ& (t ) is defined as the shear strain velocity at time t.

ln vv0v 0’ C

Path A to B: Normal consolidation

A
B

C’

Path B to C: Un-drained shear process(During the earthquake)

D’
D

Path C to D: Volume change process
after liquefaction (pi=pi(c))

ln(p+pi) Path C’ to D’: Volume change processpi(c)after liquefaction (pi=pi(c’))

p+pipi(c’)

Fig. 7 Schematic drawings of the volume change process during and after liquefaction
Accumulated shear strain throughout the soil deposit in the centrifuge experiments are shown in
Fig. 8. Largest accumulated shear strain is seen in Case3 (Akita-L2) instead of Case1 (PI-L2), in
which the largest maximum shear strain was observed, as shown in Fig. 6. Compared the accumulated
shear strain distribution in the ground with that of the maximum shear strain, relatively larger values
are observed throughout the soil deposit in cases selected Akita motion, which has longer duration, as
input motion at experiments.
0

Accumulated shear strain
0.5
1
1.5

2

0
-2

Depth (m)

-4
PI-L2
-6

PI-L1
Akita-L2-8

Akita-L1-10-12

Fig. 8 Accumulated shear strain throughout the soil deposit at the centrifuge experiments794

Simulation of the post liquefaction settlement
Numerical simulations were conducted to access performance of the new settlement model. Centrifuge
experiments discussed are simulated and compared in terms of the ground surface settlement.
Fig. 9 shows the model used in the simulation. A 1D FEM soil column model, consists of solid
elements with plane strain condition is adopted. Only the vertical movement is allowed for liquid
phase in this model. Initial shear stiffness of the model is determined by the model ground period
measured at small excitation test in the centrifuge. Major soil parameters are shown in Table 4, whichwere obtained from laboratory element tests on the sand used in the centrifuge experiment. Result of
the liquefaction test simulation performed under the cyclic simple shear condition utilizing theseparameters is shown in Fig. 10.
Parameters governing the volumetric strain characteristics a and b are determined basing on the
result of the laboratory test executed with sand used in the centrifuge experiment. Fig. 11 shows thetest result and the fitted result on the relations between the volumetric strain after the liquefaction(re-consolidation volumetric strain) and the accumulated shear strain during cyclic shear. Parameters
are chosen as a=10 and b=0.5, respectively, and about 3% maximum volumetric strain is expected inthis case.
Simulations were performed on 4 cases, and recorded acceleration time histories on the shaking
table are utilized. To calculate the re-consolidation settlement, duration of the analyses is chosen as
4,000s as to stabilize the re-consolidation process.
Multiple point confinement(Horizontal and Vertical)

Table 4 Major soil parameters used in the simulation
0.87
Void ratio
e0
λ
1.20
Parameter for dilatancy
characteristicsµ
0.21
Friction angle
φf37°
Compression index
Cc
0.0150Poisson ratioν
0.33
Permeability (m/s)
k
8.0x10-5

Solid element

Rigid base
Input motion（F+F）

Cyclic shear stress ratio σd /2σc'

0.4∆ u/ σ c ' =0.95
0.3

Re-consolidation volumericstrain ε v (%)

Fig. 9 Simulation model
Experiment (Hollow cylinder)
Experiment (Tri-axial)
Calculated

0.2

0.1

4
#7 sand Dr=60%
32
1

Experiment
Estimated a=10, b=0.5

0

0
1

10

100

Number of cycle N c

Fig.10 Result of the liquefaction test simulation

795

0

0.5
1
1.5
Accumulated shear strain γ acm

2Fig. 11 Relations between the re-consolidation
volumetric strain after the liquefaction and theaccumulated shear strain during cyclic shearCalculated final settlements of the ground surface are summarized in Table 5. Settlements
calculated by the adopted model became larger than that of calculated by the original model.
Settlements calculated at L1 event (Case 2 and Case 4; Maximum acceleration is smaller than 2m/s2)
become close to that observed at experiments. Comparison of these cases, settlement calculated at
Akita motion, which has longer duration, is larger than that of observed at Port Island motion, whichshows larger peak acceleration. In Case1 and Case 3, at which L2 motion were used, settlement
become larger than L1 event and original EFECT model, but still smaller than that of observed atexperiments. Because of the re-consolidation characteristics of sand is derived from the sand specimen
with Dr=60%, which is denser than the model ground, these results may be affected.
Fig. 12 show comparisons of observed and calculated ground surface settlement time histories at
Case2 and Case 4. Periods of settlement duration are about 1,000s in both observed settlement andcalculated settlement by the adopted model in Case 2, in spite that of the original model is about 300s.
Duration get longer in Case 4 than that of Case 2, moreover, due to the input motion characteristics.
Although settlements rapidly increased at the beginning of the observed time histories, whichcorrespond to the duration of shake events, shape of the post-liquefaction settlement increment relatewith re-consolidation is mostly reproduced by the analysis adopted a new re-consolidation model.
Fig. 13 show comparisons of observed and calculated PPR time histories in Case 2. Due to theestimated volumetric strain became larger induced by the adopted model, the period of duration ofexcess pore water pressure dissipation became longer than the original model. In addition, it is seenthat the duration became longer than that of observed in the experiment. Further discussion isnecessary on this point in terms of the permeability characteristics of the soil during liquefaction(Kazama 2003).
Table 5 Ground surface settlement
1(PI-L2)
2(PI-L1)
3(Akita-L2)
4(Akita-L1)
Port Island
Akita
485
200
311
160

Settlement (cm)Case
Input motion
Max. Acceleration (cm/s2)
AdoptedCalculatedmodel
settlement
EFECT
(cm)
(original)
Observed settlement (cm)

0.0

16.9

10.8

14.6

12.1

4.7

3.6

4.5

4.6

29

12

32

17

ExperimentCalculated (Adopted)

2000

3000

Calculated (EFECT)

-5.0
-10.0
-15.0
-20.0
0

1000

4000
(sec)

Settlement (cm)(a) Case 2 (PI-L1)
0.0

ExperimentCalculated (Adopted)

2000

3000

Calculated (EFECT)

-5.0
-10.0
-15.0
-20.0
0

1000

(b) Case 4 (Akita-L1)
Fig. 12 Comparisons of ground surface settlement time histories

796

4000
(sec)

PPR

1

ExperimentCalculated (Adopted)

2000

3000

Calculated (EFECT)

0.5

0
0

1000

4000
(sec)

Fig. 13 Comparisons of PPR time histories (Case 2: GL=-2m)

SIMULATION OF THE GROUND SETTLEMENTDURING THE GREAT EAST JAPAN EARTHQUAKE
Procedures

2

Acceleration (m/s )Numerical model and procedures used here are same as same as previous chapter. Model ground wasassumed as 15m deep soft sandy deposit, referred to the ground condition at Urayasu area (JGS 2011b).
Soil parameters previously shown in Table 4 were used.
Earthquake motion recorded at Urayasu (CHB008NS, NIED 2011a) was chosen as the input
motion for this simulation. Because Urayasu motion was recorded at the ground surface, base motion
defined at the top of the silt layer underneath surface sand deposit was calculated by SHAKE. Bothsurface and base motions are shown in Fig. 14. Port Island motion is used, in addition, for comparison.
Maximum acceleration amplitude of PI motion was set as same as Urayasu motion (about 1m/s2) inCase A and about 4.5m/s2 ,which is equivalent to the L2 motion, in Case B.
2
Max=1.070 Min=-1.250

1
0

-1
-2
0

50

100

150

200

250

300
(sec)

2

Acceleration (m/s )(a) Surface motion (Recorded motion)2
Max=0.775 Min=-0.907

1
0

-1
-2
0

50

100

150

200

250

2

Acceleration (m/s )(b) Base motion (E+F)
Fig. 14 Urayasu motion (CHB008NS)
2

300
(sec)

Max=0.745 Min=-1.042

1
0

-1
-2
0

50

100

150

200

Fig. 15 Port Island motion (Base, E+F, Case A)

797

250

300
(sec)

Results
Maximum excess pore pressure water ratio (PPR) distributions throughout the sand deposit are shownin Fig. 16. PPR of 1.0 are seen most part of the sand deposit in Urayasu case and Case B, at which L2
motion is applied. This suggests that Urayasu motion, with which the maximum acceleration is only
1m/s2, affected to liquefaction as severe as the L2 motion. In Case A, on the other hand, only shallow
part of the ground got liquefied.
Fig. 17 shows calculated time histories of the ground surface settlement. Final settlement observedin Urayasu case is 0.21m, which is the largest among these cases. Although the liquefied extent issame as Urayasu case, final settlement observed in Case B is smaller, about 0.13m. Therefore, it isconcluded that effect of the duration of the earthquake event can be simulated reasonably by adopting
the volumetric strain model considering the experienced shear strain during the earthquake event.
Settlement observed in Case A is much smaller, about 0.02m, because of the limited liquefaction
generation.
Fig. 18 shows time history of the PPR calculated in Urayasu case. It is seen that period of duration
to dissipate the excess pore water pressure is more than 3,000s (45 minutes). It is pointed out that
settlement became larger in Urayasu area due to the aftershock (Mw=7.7) happened about 29 minutes
after the main shock (Fukutake 2011), because of the residual excess pore water pressure in the ground.
Therefore, PPR characteristics shown in Fig. 18 follow that observation.
PPR
0.5

1

0

1.5

0.5

PPR
1

1.5

0

-2

-2

0

0

0

2

2

2

4

4

4

6
8

Depth (m)-2Depth (m)Depth (m)

0

PPR

6
8

0.5

1

1.5

6
8

10

10

10

12

12

12

14

14

14

16

16

16

(a) Urayasu (PA=1m/s2)(b) Case A (PI:PA=1m/s2)(c) Case B (PI:4.5m/s2)
Fig. 16 Comparison of PPR distribution throughout sand deposit

Settlement (m)

0
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

(sec)
4000

0.019 m0.132 m0.207 mUrayasu

Case A

Case B

Fig. 17 Comparison of the ground surface settlement time histories

798

1.5
PPR

GL=-3m
1

0.5
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000
(sec)

Fig. 18 PPR time history in Urayasu case (GL=-3m)

CONCLUSIONS
Followings are concluded from this research.
(a) By conducting the centrifuge experiments, it is found that the settlement characteristics of theground surface due to liquefaction heavily affected by the duration of the earthquake motion,
as well as the maximum acceleration. It is suggested that even if smaller maximum
acceleration is expected, larger settlement may occur in case of the longer duration
earthquake.
(b) By adopting the new volumetric strain estimation model into the effective stress program,
predicted settlement characteristics is improved. Because the experienced shear strain during
the earthquake is used as the index for the post-liquefaction volumetric strain estimation,
dependency of the settlement in terms of the duration of the earthquake can be simulated
reasonably. By comparing the estimated settlement by the simulation and the observed
settlement in the centrifuge experiments, applicability of the model is confirmed.
(c) By utilizing the improved program, settlement characteristics of the liquefied ground aroundthe Tokyo bay area during the Great East Japan Earthquake is estimated. It is found that theearthquake motion attacked Urayasu, even though its maximum acceleration is 1m/s2, show
potential to give severe damage on the soft sandy reclaimed ground, as strong as L2 motion,
because of the long duration.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Earthquake record, observed at the Great East Japan Earthquake, utilized for the effective stressanalyses is derived from k-net/NIED.

REFERENCES
National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention, (2011a),
http://www.k-net.bosai.go.jp/k-net/
The Japanese Geotechnical Society, (2011b), http://www.jiban.or.jp/file/file/4-11Yasuda.pdf (inJapanese).
Nagase, H. and Ishihara, K. (1988). “Liquefaction-induced compaction and settlement of sand during
earthquakes.” Soils and Foundations, Vol.28, No.1, 65-76.
Yoshida, N., Tsujino, S. and Inadoumaru, S. (1994). “Preliminary study on the settlement of groundafter liquefaction,” Proc. of 29th JNCGE，859-860 (in Japanese).
Ishihara, K. and Yoshimine, M (1992). ”Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following
liquefaction during earthquakes.” Soils and Foundations, Vol.32, 173-188.
The Earthquake Engineering Committee of JSCE, (2003). “Activity report on soil liquefaction under799

level II earthquake motion.” 253-320 (in Japanese).
Ikeda, K., Sato, K., Higuchi, S. and Ejiri, J., (2006). “Basic research on the post-liquefaction
settlement characteristics observed in the centrifuge experiments.” Proc. of 61st JSCE Annual
Meeting, 3-306, 607-608 (in Japanese) .
Higuchi, S., Ito, K. and Sento, N. (2007). ”Seismic response analysis on the liquefable sandy groundbasing on the effective stress theory with adopting the volumetric compression model of sand after
undrained cyclic shear.” Proc. of 42nd JNCGE, 1641-1642 (in Japanese).
Matsuda, T. and Higuchi, S., (2002). “Development of the large geotechnical centrifuge and shaking
table of obayashi.” Proc. of ICPMG 02, pp.63-68.
Coastal Development Institute of Technology (1997). “Handbook of countermeasures againstliquefaction of landfill sites (Revised edition) . “ 78-85.
Japan Gas Association, (2000).” Annual report of research on the standardization of gas facilities(Seismic edition).” 75-107 (in Japanese).
Ito, K. (1995). “EFECT; The code of effective stress analysis (part1), basic theory and constitutive
model for soils.” Report of obayashi corporation technical research institute, No.51, 7-14 (inJapanese).
Biot, M. A. (1962) “Mechanics of deformation and acoustic propagation in porous media.” Journal ofApplied Physics, Vol.33, No.4, 1482-1498.
Matsuoka, H. and Sakakibara, K. (1987). “A constitutive model for sands and clays evaluating
principal stress rotation.” Soils and Foundations, Vol.27, No.4, 73-88.
Sento, N., Kazama, M. and Uzuoka, R. (2004). “Experiment and idealization of the volumetriccompression characteristics of clean sand after undrained cyclic shear.” Journal of JSCE , No.764,
Vol.3-67, 307-317 (in Japanese).
Kazama et al. (2003). “Liquefaction and settlement of reclaimed ground with gravelly decomposed
granite soil.” Soils and Foundations, Vol.43, No.3, 57-72.
Fukutake, K. (2011c) “Studies on liquefaction and settlement the Urayasu district using effective stressanalysis for the 2011 East Japan Great Earthquake.”, Proc.of 31st JSCE Earthquake Engineering
Symposium, 2-004 (in Japanese).
(2011.12.02 Submitted)(2012.xx.xx Accepted)

800