A Consistent Soil Fatigue Framework Based on the Number of Equivalent Cycles

  • Nii Allotey
  • M. Hesham El Naggar
Original Paper


Cyclic soil degradation and hardening affects soil stiffness and strength, and is linked to an increase or decrease in the mean effective confining stress due to void ratio or pore pressure changes. This change of state can be explicitly modeled by using effective stress methods, or implicitly modeled using total stress methods. In the latter, this is achieved by using empirical functions based on the number of loading cycles that are derived from constant-amplitude stress or strain laboratory tests. To suite generalized loading conditions, these functions must be extrapolated to variable-amplitude loading. This falls under the general class of a fatigue-based problem. The main focus of this paper is to present a generalized consistent soil fatigue formulation for soils under cyclic loading. The paper then goes on to discuss the implementation of various cyclic soil degradation and hardening models reported in the literature, and highlights their important underlying assumptions, capabilities and limitations.


Degradation Hardening Fatigue Damage function Cyclic Earthquake Soils Palmgren–Miner rule Liquefaction Equivalent number of cycles 


  1. Allotey NK (2006) Nonlinear soil-structure interaction in performance-based design. Ph.D. thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  2. Allotey NK, El Naggar MH (2006). Cyclic degradation/hardening in total stress analysis: new equations. In: Proceedings of 1st European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, Paper no. 1015Google Scholar
  3. Andersen KH, Dyvik R, Kikuchi Y, Skomedal E (1993) Clay behaviour under irregular cyclic loading. Norwegian Geotech Inst Pub 189:1–18Google Scholar
  4. Annaki M, Lee KLL (1977) Equivalent uniform cycle concept for soil dynamics. J Geotech Eng Div, ASCE, 103(GT6):549–564Google Scholar
  5. Biondi G, Cascone E, Maugeri M (2004) Number of uniform stress cycles equivalent to seismic loading. In: Proceedings of 11th ICSDEE/3rd ICEGE, pp 705–712Google Scholar
  6. De Alba P, Seed HB, Chan CK (1976). Sand liquefaction in large-scale simple shear tests. J Geotech Eng Div, ASCE 102(GT9):909–927Google Scholar
  7. Finn WDL, Lee KW, Martin GR (1977) An effective stress model for liquefaction. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 103(GT6):517–533Google Scholar
  8. Grashuis AJ, Dieterman HA, Zorn NF (1990) Calculation of cyclic response of laterally loaded piles. Comp Geotech 10:287–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Green RA, Terri GA (2005) Number of equivalent cycles concept for liquefaction evaluation—revisited. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 131(4):477–488Google Scholar
  10. Hwang W, Han KS (1986) Cumulative damage models and multi-stress fatigue life prediction. J Composite Mat 20:125–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Idriss IM, Moriwaki Y, Dobry R (1977) Stress–strain behaviour of soft clay in level ground deposits during and after cyclic earthquake loading, normal marine clay, Icy bay area, Gulf of Alaska. Final Report for Shell Development Company, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  12. Idriss IM, Dobry R, Singh RD (1978) Nonlinear behaviour of soft clays during cyclic loading. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 104(GT12):1427–1447Google Scholar
  13. Lee KL, Albeisa A (1974) Earthquake induced settlements in saturated sands. J Soil Mech Found Div, ASCE 100(SM4):387–406Google Scholar
  14. Lee KL, Chan K (1972) Number of equivalent significant cycles in strong motion earthquakes. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Microzonation for Safer Construction Research and Application, vol 2. Seattle, Washington, pp 609–627Google Scholar
  15. Liu AH, Stewart JP, Abrahamson NA, Moriwaki Y (2001) Equivalent number of uniform stress cycles for soil liquefaction analysis. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(12):1017–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liyanapathirana DS, Poulos HG (2002) A numerical model for dynamic soil liquefaction analysis. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 22:1007–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Matasovic N, Vucetic M (1993) Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 119(11):1805–1822Google Scholar
  18. Matasovic N, Vucetic M (1995) Generalized cyclic-degradation-pore pressure generation model for clays. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 121(1):33–42Google Scholar
  19. Matlock H, Foo S, Bryant LM (1978) Simulation of lateral pile behaviour under earthquake motion. In: Proceedings of ASCE Specialty Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, vol II, Pasadena, California, pp 600–619Google Scholar
  20. Miner MA (1945) Cumulative damage in fatigue. J App Mech 12(3):159–164Google Scholar
  21. Palmgren A (1924) Die Lebensder Von Kugellagren. Zeitschrift des Vereines Deutscher Ingenieure 58:339–341 (German)Google Scholar
  22. PMB Engineering (1988) Pile Analysis Routines, Theoretical and User’s Manual, PMB Engineering Inc., Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  23. Poulos HG (1982) Single pile response to cyclic lateral load. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 108(GT3):355–375Google Scholar
  24. Pyke R, Beikae M (1993) TESS—A computer program for nonlinear ground response analysis: User’s Manual, Taga Engineering Software Services, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  25. Rajashree SS, Sundaravadivelu R (1996) Degradation model for one-way cyclic lateral load on piles in soft clay. Comp Geotech 19(4):289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sawant VA, Dewaikar DM (1999) Analysis of pile subjected to cyclic lateral loading. Geotech Eng J, Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society 30(1):25–40Google Scholar
  27. Seed HB, Idriss IM, Makdisi F, Banerjee N (1975) Representation of irregular stress time-histories by equivalent uniform stress series in liquefaction analysis. Report No. UCB/EERC 75-29, University of California, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  28. Seed HB, Martin PP, Lysmer J (1976) Pore-water pressure changes during soil liquefaction. J Geotech Eng Div, ASCE 104(GT4):323–346Google Scholar
  29. Swane IC, Poulos HG (1984) Shakedown analysis of a laterally loaded pile tested in stiff clay. In: Proceedings of 4th Australia-New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Paper no. C1545, Perth, Australia, pp 275–279Google Scholar
  30. Van Eekelen HAM (1977) Single-parameter models for progressively weakening soils by cyclic loading. Geotechnique 27(3):357–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Eekelen HAM (1980) Fatigue models for cyclic degradation of soils. In: Pande GN, Zienkiewicz OC (eds) Soils under cyclic and transient loading. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 447–450Google Scholar
  32. Van Paepegem W, Degrieck J (2002) Effects of load sequence and block loading on the fatigue response of fibre-reinforced composites. Mech Adv Mat Struct 9(1):19–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1988) Degradation of marine clays under cyclic loading. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 114(2):133–149Google Scholar
  34. Yasuhara K, Hirao K, Hyde AFL (1992). Effects of cyclic loading on undrained strength and compressibility of clay. Soils and Found 32(1):100–116Google Scholar
  35. Yasuhara K, Hyde AFL, Toyata N, Murakami S (1997). Cyclic stiffness of plastic silt with an initial drained shear stress. In: Proceedings of Geotechnique Symposium on Pre-failure Deformation Behaviour of Geomaterials, London, pp 373–382Google Scholar
  36. Yoshida N, Yasuda S, Kiku H (2004) Laboratory test of liquefaction characteristics of sand under level-two ground motion. In: Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Paper no. 492Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.Research and External Relations, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations