614 Christopher Chud Lundgreen 2010 KR

Damping Ratios for Laterally Loaded Pile Groups in
Fine Grained Soils and Improved Soils

by
Christopher Chud Lundgreen

A project submitted to the faculty of
Brigham Young University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Master of Science

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Brigham Young University
August 2010

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COMMITTEE APPROVAL
of a project submitted by
This project has been read by each member of the following graduate committee and by majority
vote has been found to be satisfactory.

Date

Kyle M. Rollins, Chair

Date

Travis M. Gerber, Member

Date Fernando S. Fonseca, Member
Accepted for the Department

E. James Nelson, Graduate
Coordinator

ABSTRACT
Damping Ratios for Laterally Loaded Pile Groups in
Fine Grained Soils and Improved Soils

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Master of Science

A set of pile groups were loaded laterally both statically and cyclically to determine static
load-displacement curves and damping ratios as a function of displacement. Tests were
performed on piles in native undisturbed clay as well as soils treated with a variety of soil
improvement techniques such as jet grouting, soil mixing and flowable fill. Damping ratios were
determined based on the hysteresis loops for each pile group at a number of displacement levels.
The measured damping ratio was relatively unaffected by the number of cycles and only
moderately affected by the soil improvement technique. Measured damping ratios were typically
between 15 and 25% which is consistent with limited data in the literature for small displacement
vibration tests. Charts are presented to show the range of damping ratio found through this
study.

Keywords: damping, cohesive soils, soil improvement, cyclic loading, pile groups

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would first and foremost like to thank my advisor, Dr. Kyle M. Rollins, for his help and
guidance on this endeavor. He was willing to take me on as his student and pursue a masters
degree. I would also like to thank my committee for their guidance and support and everyone
else in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at Brigham Young University. In
addition, I thank the secretaries, especially Janice, who work tirelessly for the students. I also
want to thank my wife Emily for her support even when it wasn't the easiest of times for both of
us. My parents were also a great inspiration in helping me pursue an advanced degree and I want
to thank them for that. I would like to thank the US Forest Service for helping me pursue and
finance my education. Three individuals I want to thank are Bill Vischer, Marcia Hughey, and
Jerry McGaughran. Bill has provided invaluable and seasoned geotechnical experience. Marcia
has provided me with resources and direction within the agency. Jerry McGaughran was the
individual who is responsible for introducing me to Forest Service Engineering. Last of all I want
to thank Ryan Stone, my first engineering supervisor who instilled the importance of going
beyond a bachelors degree.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Damping for Soil-Structure Systems ........................................................................... 2
2 PREVIOUS STUDIES ............................................................................................................... 7
3 SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................ 21
4 MATERIALS AND TEST SETUP......................................................................................... 31
5 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS .................................................................................................. 39
5.1 Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................... 39
5.2 Results ........................................................................................................................ 43
5.2.1 Results for Pile Group in Virgin Clay ...................................................... 45
5.2.2 Results for Pile Group with Flowable Fill ............................................... 49
5.2.3 Results for Pile Group with Soil Mix Wall .............................................. 53
5.2.4 Results for Pile Group Surrounded by Jet-Grout Columns .................. 57
5.2.5 Results for Pile Group with Adjacent Jet-grout Columns ..................... 60
5.2.6 Results for Pile Group with Compacted Fill ........................................... 64
5.2.7 Results for Pile Group New Flowable Fill ............................................... 67
5.3 Summary .................................................................................................................... 69
5.4 Reconciliation of Differences ................................................................................... 71
6 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 73
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 75
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................. 77
Appendix A Raw Data ................................................................................................... 77

vi

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2- 1: Halling et. al. 2000 data.............................................................................................. 10
Table 3- 1: Soil strength parameters for the Legacy Parkway test site ......................................... 26
Table 4- 1: Breakdown of each test, pilecap, and material. .......................................................... 34
Table 5- 1: Symbolic area calculation by coordinates .................................................................. 40
Table 5- 2: Area calculations of the first hysteresis loop ............................................................. 42
Table 5- 3: Area, stiffness, displacement, and damping for Loop 1 ............................................. 43
Table 5- 4: Denominator factor for calculating shear strain ......................................................... 44
Table 5- 5: Denominator factors from Skempton (1951) ............................................................. 44
Table 5- 6: Summary of findings from this study ......................................................................... 70
Table A- 1: Test 1 pilecap 1 results .............................................................................................. 78
Table A- 10: Test 5 pilecap 4 results ............................................................................................ 87
viii
Table A- 14: Test 9 pilecap 2 raw data ......................................................................................... 91
Table A- 15: Test 10 pilecap 2 results .......................................................................................... 92
Table A- 23: Test 14 pilecap 1 results ........................................................................................ 100

ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1- 1: Radiation damping as shown from Gazetas (1975) .................................................... 4
Figure 1- 2: Generalized hysteresis loop ........................................................................................ 5
Figure 2- 1: Damping ratio vs. intertia ratio from Gazetas (1975) ................................................. 8
Figure 2- 2: Rollins et. al. 2009 damping ratio data for gravel backfill ......................................... 9
Figure 2- 3: Hardin & Drnevich 1972 data for damping ratio of Lick Creek silt ......................... 11
Figure 2- 4: Hardin & Drnevich 1972 relationship for damping ratio and shear strain amplitude12
Figure 2- 5: Seed et. al. 1986 data showing damping ratio decrease with confining stress ......... 13
Figure 2- 6: Damping ratio as a funciton of PI from Vucetic & Dobry 1991for shear strains of
1.0% and 0.01% ............................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 2- 7: Damping ratio as a function of PI from Vucetic & Dobry 1991 with shear strain of
0.1% .............................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 2- 8: Damping ratio as a function of cyclic shear strain for gravels based on cyclic triaxial
shear tests conducted by eight researchers after Rollins et. al. 1998 ............................................ 16
Figure 2- 9: Zhang et. al. 2005 data showing damping ratio vs. shear strain with geologic age of
soil ................................................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 2- 10: Zhang et. al. 2005 data showing damping ratio as a function of PI and shear strain
....................................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2- 11: Zhang et. al. 2005 data showing varying confining stress, shear strain, and geologic
age effects on damping ratio ......................................................................................................... 19
Figure 3- 1: Location of the Legacy Test site ............................................................................... 21
Figure 3- 2: (a) Borehole log, (b) a plot of Atterberg limits and natural water content versus
depth, along with, (c) a plot of undrained shear strength versus depth ........................................ 23
x
Figure 3- 3: Plots of cone penetration test (CPT) sounding 2 data ............................................... 27
Figure 3- 4: Plots of cone penetration test (CPT) soundings ........................................................ 28
Figure 3- 5: Plots of cone tip resistance and shear wave velocity versus depth from seismic cone
testing ............................................................................................................................................ 29
Figure 4- 1: Pile plan view ............................................................................................................ 32
Figure 4- 2: Plan view of pilecap setup ........................................................................................ 33
Figure 4- 3: Profile view of pilecap setup ..................................................................................... 33
Figure 4- 4: Virgin clay test setup................................................................................................. 35
Figure 4- 5: Setup for compacted fill and flowable fill tests ........................................................ 36
Figure 4- 6: Setup for surrounding jet-grout columns, adjacent jet-grout columns, and soil mix
wall ................................................................................................................................................ 36
Figure 4- 7: Test setup for centered jet-grout columns and new flowable fill .............................. 38
Figure 5- 1: Load-Displacement data for Test 1 Pilecap 1 ........................................................... 40
Figure 5- 2: Loop 1 of the first set of hystersis loops on Test 1 Pilecap 1 ................................... 42
Figure 5- 3: Virgin clay damping ratio histogram ........................................................................ 46
Figure 5- 4: Virgin clay damping ratio for each load cycle .......................................................... 47
Figure 5- 5: Virgin clay damping ratio ranges .............................................................................. 48
Figure 5- 6: Flowable fill damping ratio histogram ...................................................................... 50
Figure 5- 7: Flowable fill damping ratio for each loading cycle .................................................. 51
Figure 5- 8: Flowable fill damping ratio ranges ........................................................................... 52
Figure 5- 9: Soil mix wall damping ratio histogram ..................................................................... 54
Figure 5- 10: Soil mix wall damping ratio for each load cycle .................................................... 55
Figure 5- 11: Soil mix wall damping ratio ranges ........................................................................ 56
xi
Figure 5- 12: Surrounding jet-grout columns damping ratio histogram ....................................... 58
Figure 5- 13: Surrounding jet-grout columns damping ratio for each load cycle ......................... 59
Figure 5- 14: Surrounding jet-grout columns damping ratio regions ........................................... 60
Figure 5- 15: Adjacent jet-grout columns damping ratio histogram............................................. 61
Figure 5- 16: Adjacent jet-grout columns damping ratio for each load cycle .............................. 62
Figure 5- 17: Adjacent jet-grout columns damping ratio regions ................................................. 63
Figure 5- 18: Compacted fill damping ratio histogram ................................................................ 64
Figure 5- 19: Compacted fill damping ratio for each load cycle .................................................. 65
Figure 5- 20: Compacted fill damping ratio regions ..................................................................... 66
Figure 5- 21: New flowable fill damping ratio histogram ............................................................ 67
Figure 5- 22: New flowable fill damping ratio for each load cycle .............................................. 68
Figure 5- 23: New flowable fill damping ratio regions ................................................................ 69
Figure A- 1: Test 1 pilecap 1 raw data .......................................................................................... 78
Figure A- 10: Test 5 pilecap 4 raw data ........................................................................................ 87
xii
Figure A- 15: Test 10 pilecap 2 raw data ...................................................................................... 92
Figure A- 23: Test 14 pilecap 1 raw data .................................................................................... 100

1
1 Introduction
Pile foundations for buildings, bridges and other structures are often subjected to
dynamic loadings produced by ship impact, wave action, wind, and earthquake shaking. Under
dynamic loading, damping may offer significant resistance to lateral movement in addition to the
static spring stiffness of the soil-structure system. However, most simplified design methods
neglect damping resistance and rely on an equivalent static loading approach. This may be a
result of the fact that very few full-scale lateral load tests have been performed to determine an
appropriate damping ratio for pile groups. The paucity of test data is explained by the fact that
full-scale testing is relatively expensive and logistically difficult to perform.
To improve our understanding of the lateral resistance of pile groups under dynamic
loadings, a number of lateral load tests were performed on full-scale pile groups as part of this
study. These tests involved pile groups in native cohesive soil as well as pile groups where the
surrounding soil was improved using a variety of soil improvement techniques such as: soil
mixing, jet grouting, placement of flowable fill, and excavation and replacement with compacted
fill. Load tests were performed statically in an incremental fashion to displacements of 0.125,
0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, and 1.5 inches. However, at each increment three cycles of loading were
applied at a frequency of about 1 Hz. Results from these tests were used to compute the
damping ratio. The results from the static load tests are reported by Adsero (2008), Herbst
(2008), Miner (2009) and Lemme (2010).
2

1.1 Damping for Soil-Structure Systems
The lateral resistance of a pile group due to an applied load P is given by the equation
(1-1)
where F
i
is the inertia force, F
d
is the damping force and F
k
is the spring force. The resistance
can also be expressed by the equation
(1-2)
where m is the mass, a is the horizontal acceleration, C is the damping coefficient, v is the
horizontal velocity, k is the static spring stiffness and x is the horizontal displacement.
To facilitate comparisons between systems with different masses and stiffnesses, the
damping coefficient is often normalized by the critical damping coefficient C
c
to obtain the
damping ratio, , as given by the equation,
(1-3)
The critical damping coefficient is the damping coefficient for which the displacement
goes to zero after one cycle of motion. An alternative definition for the damping ratio is given
by the equation
3
(1-4)
where
o
= natural frequency of the system, hereafter referred to as (Kramer 1996).
The damping measured in a load test is a result of two kinds of damping, namely
radiation damping and hysteretic damping. As explained by Gazetas (1975), radiation damping
occurs as energy is absorbed into the soil as waves radiate out from the point of loading and
propagate through the soil medium. This geometrical effect is illustrated in Figure 1-1. As the
wave moves further from the source the volume available for dissipating the energy increases.
Hysteretic damping accounts for the energy loss in the soil due to viscosity and plastic
deformations as the soil is loaded and unloaded. As discussed subsequently, the hysteretic
damping typically increases as the displacement and resulting shear strain increase.
The total energy loss from radiation and hysteretic damping results in a hysteresis loop in
the load-displacement curve rather than a straight elastic line. The damping ratio for the soil-
structure system can be defined by the equation
(1-5)
where A
loop
is the area inside the hysteresis loop; k is the stiffness in units of force/length and is
calculated by the change in force/length (F/u); and u is the single amplitude displacement
Rollins et al. (2009). A hysteresis loop is shown in Figure 1-2, which is a graphical
representation of cyclic loading and unloading plotted against displacement or shear strain. For
the lateral pile group load tests in this study a combination of both hysteretic and radiation
4
damping, namely swaying radiation damping, developed. Equation 1-5 was used to compute the
composite damping ratio based on the load test measurements for each soil improvement
technique. These results are then compared to determine if there is any consistent pattern to the
measured damping ratio relative to the various soil improvement techniques.

Figure 1- 1: Radiation damping as shown from Gazetas (1975)

5

Figure 1- 2: Generalized hysteresis loop

As stated before the total damping can be obtained from a hysteresis loop. When the
hysteretic damping, , the stiffness, K, and the natural frequency, , are known. The hysteretic
dashpot coefficient, c
m
, may be calculated as

6
(1-6)
and then total damping coefficient, C, may be calculated as shown.

(1-7)

where c
r
is the radiation damping coefficient. If the total damping coefficient is known, the
radiation damping coefficient can be calculated. Once C is known, the damping ratio x, can be
calculated as shown

(1-8)

where k is stiffness and m is mass. This is similar to equation 1-4 and C can be applied to both
the y and z directions.
7
2 Previous Studies
As noted previously, the measured damping ratio for soil-structure interaction problems
is a result of both radiation damping and hystertic damping. Hypothetically, radiation damping
is expected to provide the major contribution to the overall damping of the soil-structure system
because of the large-scale test setup outside of a laboratory. The rationale for this is due to the
geographically large setting; ample room is provided for the cyclic loading to dissipate in the
soil. Verifying or denying this hypothesis is a major reason for conducting this study. Relatively
few full-scale lateral pile group load tests have been performed to evaluate the damping ratio for
pile group-soil interaction because of the cost and logistic difficulties of performing these tests.
In contrast, there is a vast body of information on the hysteretic damping of soil based on small-
scale laboratory testing which addresses soil type, shear strain, confining pressure and plasticity
index.
Radiation Damping
Gazetas (1975) present a summary chart showing the relationship between damping ratio and
inertia ratio in four radiation damping categories which is presented in Figure 2- 1. Inertia ratio is
the ratio of the soil moment of inertia to the moment of inertia of the foundation. The categories
are as follows; vertical, swaying (which is a horizontal movement), torsion, and rocking. As
stated before, the lateral pile group tests involve radiation damping due to a swaying and rocking
motion. The damping ratio for swaying is less than that for vertical motions but much higher
8
than that due to rocking or torsion. Over a wide range of inertia ratios the damping ratios range
between 10 and 50%. With the typical range of interest for foundations under cyclic horizontal
loading, the range is between 20 and 35%.

Figure 2- 1: Damping ratio vs. intertia ratio from Gazetas (1975)

9

Figure 2- 2: Rollins et. al. 2009 damping ratio data for gravel backfill

Rollins et al. (2009) performed cyclic lateral load tests on a large pile cap with and
without backfill adjacent to the cap. The pile cap was 11 ft by 16 ft in plan view with a thickness
of 5.5 ft and was supported by six 12.75 inch diameter steel pipe piles. The backfill consisted of
sand and gravel. Their results are presented in Figure 2- 2. Their study showed damping ratios
between 25% and 35% and each test showed very little variation with the number of load cycles
or with the level of displacement at which the test was performed.
Halling et. al. (2000) used an eccentric mass shaker and a 12-pound sledge hammer to
evaluate the damping ratio of a pile cap in relatively soft clay without any backfill around the
10
pilecap. The pile cap was 9 ft by 9 ft in plan view with a thickness of 3 ft and was supported by
nine 12.75 inch diameter steel pipe piles in a 3x3 arrangement. The mass shaker was used to
induce sinusoidal vibrations, whereas the sledge hammer was used for the impact vibrations,
which was hit in the center of the pilecap. The mass shaker caused a maximum displacement of
0.02 mm/kN (3.5x10
-6
in/lb) with steady state excitation frequencies of 5 to 8 Hz in increments
of 0.2 Hz, 8 to 10 Hz in increments of 0.1 Hz, and 10 to 20 Hz in increments of 0.5 Hz. The
damping ratio was found to be approximately 14-19% with the half-power band width method.
Their results are presented in Table 2- 1.

Table 2- 1: Halling et. al. 2000 data

11
Hysteretic (Material) Damping
A very large number of laboratory studies have been done on the hysteretic or material
damping ratio of soils. Hardin & Drnevich (1972) in a Terzaghi lecture tried to further advance a
general stress-strain model for soils. A small part of their discussion included damping ratio.
They presented a couple case studies and damping ratio was one of the parameters discussed.
The discussion here will be brief in interest of conciseness. Figure 2- 3 shows a decreasing trend
of damping ratio with number of load cycles in Lick Creek silt. Figure 2- 4 shows the same silt
with an increasing damping ratio at a very low strain rate.

Figure 2- 3: Hardin & Drnevich 1972 data for damping ratio of Lick Creek silt

12

Figure 2- 4: Hardin & Drnevich 1972 relationship for damping ratio and shear strain amplitude

Seed et. al. (1986) performed widely-cited work in which damping ratio was defined as a
function of cyclic shear strain. They found that the damping ratio tended to decrease as
confining pressure increased. Seed et al. (1986) provided curves based on additional data for
sand and for gravels in Figure 2- 5.

13

Figure 2- 5: Seed et. al. 1986 data showing damping ratio decrease with confining stress

Based on data from tests on a wide variety of soils, Vucetic and Dobry (1991) developed
curves defining the material damping as a function of plasticity index. These curves are shown
in Figures Figure 2- 6 and Figure 2- 7. For a given cyclic shear strain, the damping ratio was
found to decrease as the plasticity index increased. These curves have been widely used in
geotechnical earthquake engineering practice.

14

Figure 2- 6: Damping ratio as a funciton of PI from Vucetic & Dobry 1991for shear strains of 1.0% and
0.01%

15

Figure 2- 7: Damping ratio as a function of PI from Vucetic & Dobry 1991 with shear strain of 0.1%

In 1998, Rollins et al. developed curves defining material damping for gravels. For the
same cyclic shear strain, they found the damping ratio to be somewhat lower than that for sand
and gravels defined by Seed et. al. (1986) as shown in Figure 2- 5. Rollins et al also found that
the increases in confining pressure led to a decrease in damping ratio for a given shear strain as
was the case for sand.

16

Figure 2- 8: Damping ratio as a function of cyclic shear strain for gravels based on cyclic triaxial shear tests
conducted by eight researchers after Rollins et. al. 1998

Recently another study was done from more of a geological perspective with data from
three sites in South Carolina corresponding with three different geologic ages (Zhang et al.
2005). The specimens in their experiments were subjected to resonant column and torsional shear
testing. According to Zhang the damping ratio is a function of geologic age and other soil
properties. Zhang presented several charts, the first of which is Figure 2- 9; which shows that the
damping ratio tends to increase as the geologic age increase. This chart shows damping as high
as 25% for cyclic shear strains of 1%. Following in Figure 2- 10 is Zhang's chart with damping
ratio as a function of shear strain and plasticity index with data taken from Vucetic & Dobry
17
(1991). Again, this is the same range as the previous chart. Vucetic & Dobry's study was
primarily on the influence of Plasticity Index (PI) on damping ratio. They assert that with
increasing shear strain, PI and decreasing void ratio; the damping ratio decreases relative to low
PI soils. They also point out that there are many factors that affect damping ratio including
geologic age, void ratio, soil type, overconsolidation ratio (OCR) and initial stress states.
One last set of charts done by Zhang in the same study shows damping ratio as a function
of shear strain with differing confining pressures with geologic age and are shown in Figure 2-
11. An important point is that all of Zhang's charts except Figure 2- 10 are for non-plastic soils.
Zhangs study, among others are laboratory tests which will exhibit more hysteretic damping
than radiation damping. This is due to the confined nature of a laboratory test in general with
little possibility of the loading dissipating with distance from the loading source. The
significance of Figure 2-10 for this study is to verify the material damping ratio and confirm
whether or not this experiment is governed by the expected radiation damping or not.

18

Figure 2- 9: Zhang et. al. 2005 data showing damping ratio vs. shear strain with geologic age of soil

Figure 2- 10: Zhang et. al. 2005 data showing damping ratio as a function of PI and shear strain

19

Figure 2- 11: Zhang et. al. 2005 data showing varying confining stress, shear strain, and geologic age effects
on damping ratio

20

21
3 Site Conditions
The test site is near Legacy Parkway in North Salt Lake City, Utah as shown in Figure 3-
1. Legacy Parkway is a new stretch of Interstate Highway 15 which is exclusively in Davis
County. Geotechnical site conditions where the pile cap load tests were performed were
evaluated using field and laboratory testing. Field testing included one drilled hole with
undisturbed sampling, four cone penetration test (CPT) soundings, and shear wave velocity
testing. Laboratory testing included unit weight and moisture content determination, Atterberg
limits testing, and undrained shear testing.

Figure 3- 1: Location of the Legacy Test site

22
A generalized soil boring log at the test site is provided in Figure 3- 2. The depth is
referenced to the top of the excavation which was 2.5 ft above the base of the pile cap as shown
in the figure. The soil profile consists predominantly of cohesive soils; however, some thin sand
layers are located throughout the profile. The cohesive soils typically classify as CL or CH
materials with plasticity indices of about 20 as shown in Figure 3-1(a). In contrast, the soil layer
from a depth of 15 to 25 ft consists of interbedded silt (ML) and sand (SM) layers as will be
highlighted by the subsequent plots of cone penetration test (CPT) cone tip resistance.
The liquid limit, plastic limit and natural moisture content are plotted in Figure 3-1(b) at
each depth where Atterberg limit testing was performed. The water table is at a depth of 1.5 ft.
The natural water content is less than the liquid limit near the ground surface suggesting that the
soil is overconsolidated, but the water content is greater than the liquid limit for soil specimens
from a depth of 5 to 27 feet suggesting that these materials may be sensitive. Below a depth of 30
feet the water content is approximately equal to the liquid limit suggesting that the soils are close
to normally consolidated.

23

Figure 3- 2: (a) Borehole log, (b) a plot of Atterberg limits and natural water content versus depth, along
with, (c) a plot of undrained shear strength versus depth

The undrained shear strength is plotted as a function of depth in Figure 3-1(c). Undrained
shear strength was measured using a miniature vane shear test or Torvane test on undisturbed
24
samples immediately after they were obtained in the field. In addition, unconfined compression
tests were performed on most of the undisturbed samples. Both the Torvane and unconfined
compression tests indicate that the undrained shear strength decreases rapidly from the ground
surface to a depth of about 6 ft but then tends to increase with depth. This profile is typical of a
soil profile with a surface crust that has been overconsolidated by desiccation. However, the
undrained shear strength from the unconfined compression tests is typically about 30% lower
than that from the Torvane tests. The unconfined compression tests at a depth of 27 and 48 ft
appear to have been conducted on soil with sand lenses because the measured strength is
substantially lower than that from the Torvane test and are not likely to be representative of the
soil in-situ. The undrained shear strength was also computed from the cone tip resistance using
the correlation equation

(3-1)

where q
c
is the cone tip resistance, is the total vertical stress, and N
k
is a variable which was
taken to be 15 for this study. The undrained shear strength obtained from Eq. (3-1) is also plotted
versus depth in Figure 3-1(c) and the agreement with the strengths obtained from the Torvane
and unconfined compression tests is reasonably good. Nevertheless, there is much greater
variability and the drained strength in the interbedded sand layers is ignored. A summary of
laboratory test results is provided Table 3-1.
Four cone penetration tests (CPT) were performed across the test site and plots of cone
tip resistance, friction ratio, and pore pressure are provided as a function of depth for the second
25
CPT sounding in Figure 3-2. In addition, the interpreted soil profile is also shown. From the
ground surface to a depth of about 15 feet the soil profile appears to be relatively consistent with
a cone tip resistance of about 6 tsf and a friction ratio of about 1%. However, one thin sand layer
is clearly evident between 6 and 8 ft. The cone tip resistance, friction ratio, and pore pressure
plots clearly show the interbedded silt and sand layering in the soil profile between 15 and 27 ft.
below the ground surface.
Figure 3-3 provides plots of the cone tip resistance, friction ratio and pore pressure versus
depth as a function of depth for all four of the CPT soundings. The measured parameters and
layering are generally very consistent for all four sounding which indicates that the lateral pile
load tests can be fairly compared from one site to the next.
Figure 3-4 provides a plot of the shear wave velocity as a function of depth obtained from
the downhole seismic cone testing. The interpreted soil profile and cone tip resistance are also
provided in Figure 3-4 for reference. The shear wave velocity in the upper 10 ft of the profile is
between 300 and 400 ft/sec which is relatively low and suggests a low shear strength. Between a
depth of 10 to 20 ft the velocity increases to about 550 ft/sec. This increase in velocity is likely
associated with the interbedded layer which contains significant sand layers. Below 20 ft, the
velocity drops to a value of around 500 ft/sec and remains relatively constant to a depth of 45 ft.

26

Table 3- 1: Soil strength parameters for the Legacy Parkway test site

27

Figure 3- 3: Plots of cone penetration test (CPT) sounding 2 data
28

Figure 3- 4: Plots of cone penetration test (CPT) soundings
29

Figure 3- 5: Plots of cone tip resistance and shear wave velocity versus depth from seismic cone testing
30

31
4 Materials and Test Setup
Tests were performed on four pile groups. Each pile group was composed of nine test
piles driven in a 3 x 3 arrangement. Each of the pile groups were driven to a depth of 40 feet
below the ground surface. The test piles were 12.75 inch outside diameter steel pipe piles with a
0.375 inch thickness. The plan view of the pile cross section is shown in Figure 4-1. A 5000 psi
compressive strength concrete in-fill was used in the pile with six #8 longitudinal bars with an 8
inch diameter #4 spiral bar. The moment of inertia of the pile itself was 279 in
4
. Angle irons
were attached to some piles to protect strain gauges which increased the moment of inertia to 342
in
4
. The steel was in accordance with American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) A252
Grade 3 with a yield strength of 58,700 psi. The pile caps were placed on top of the excavation at
2.5 feet below the ground surface. The piles were embedded into a reinforced concrete pile cap.
Nominally, each cap was 8.75 ft x 9.3 ft in plan and 2.5 ft thick.
A typical setup of the test piles and pile caps are shown in plan view in Figure 4-2. Figure
4-3 has the respective profile view. Many tests were performed on the site but not all will be
presented in this study. To increase the lateral resistance of the pile groups a variety of soil
improvement techniques were employed and included, excavation and replacement with
flowable fill, excavation and replacement with compacted granular fill, soil-mixing, and jet-grout
columns. Tests were also performed on untreated virgin clay as a comparison. Table 4-1 shows
the breakdown of each test, pilecap, and improvement technique which was a part of that
particular test section.
32

Figure 4- 1: Pile plan view

33

Figure 4- 2: Plan view of pilecap setup

Figure 4- 3: Profile view of pilecap setup

34

Table 4- 1: Breakdown of each test, pilecap, and material.

A plan view of each of the different test setups will be shown to clarify the descriptions.
Figure 4-4 shows the setup for the virgin clay and Figure 4-5 shows the flowable fill and
35
compacted fill setup. In Figure 4-6 the setup for the soil mix treatment, pile group surrounded by
jet-grout columns, and the adjacent jet-grout columns are presented. The virgin clay is no soil
treatment with the soil stratum as presented previously.

Figure 4- 4: Virgin clay test setup

The flowable fill test was excavated to 5.5 ft below the bottom of the cap. It was designed
to have an unconfined compressive strength of 100 psi but ended up being between 20 and 30
psi. The compacted fill was excavated to a depth 3.5 ft below the bottom of the pilecap and
compacted to about 93% of the modified proctor density.

36

Figure 4- 5: Setup for compacted fill and flowable fill tests

Figure 4- 6: Setup for surrounding jet-grout columns, adjacent jet-grout columns, and soil mix wall

Jet-grout was utilized in the form of mixing soil and cementitious material. The jet-grout
columns were of two types, pile group surrounded by jet-grout columns and adjacent jet-grout
37
columns. The grout columns extended 10 feet below the pilecap. The slurry mixing rate was
about 26 pounds per cubic foot of soil (about 20% by weight). The jet-grout compressive
strength was 680 psi on average with a range between 350 to 850 psi, based on both cored and
cast samples.
Soil-mixing or mass mixing treatment was performed by mixing the virgin clay with the
grout spoils with an excavator bucket until uniformity seemed to be achieved based on visual
inspection. The treatment had a 1 to 1 ratio of soil and grout spoils with about 13 pounds of
cement per cubic foot of soil (about 10% by weight).
The new flowable fill treatment was a redo of the flowable fill treatment with an
increased compressive strength of about 90 psi which was much closer to the desired value. The
higher strength flowable fill was placed behind the pilecap at 6 feet deep. It should be noted that
flowable fill is a cementitious material with fly ash, slag, fine aggregates, and water.

38

Figure 4- 7: Test setup for centered jet-grout columns and new flowable fill

The load was applied statically to six target deflections which were 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75,
1.0, and 1.5 inches. The actuators contracted or extended at a rate of approximately 1.5
inches/min. At each deflection increment, three load cycles were applied at a frequency of 1 Hz
with a single amplitude deflection of about 0.1 inch. The results and analyses described in this
study are focused exclusively on the cyclic loading portions of the testing program. Results of
the jet grouting load tets are provided by Adsero (2008), results of the soil mixing tests are
presented by Herbst (2008). Miner (2009) presents the results tests involving excavation and
replacement with flowable fill and Lemme (2010) provides the results of the tests involving
excavation and replacement with compacted granular fill.

39
5 Analysis and Results
5.1 Analysis Methodology
After the testing was performed the relevant data was extracted and analyzed for each
test. In Figure 5-1, the raw data for Test 1 Pilecap 1 is shown with load in kips on the y-axis
plotted versus displacement in inches on the x-axis. The three sets of hysteresis loops for this
particular displacement increment can also be seen, these were obviously the objects of interest
in this analysis. Equation 1-5 was used to calculate the damping ratio and used the area
calculation by coordinates method (Crawford 2002) to calculate the area of each hysteresis loop
shown in Table 5-1 in conjunction with equation 5-1.

(5-1)

where total 1 and total 2 are the summation of column 1 and column 2, respectively, as shown in
Table 5-1. Each column row is the product of coordinate x(i+1) and y(i) or x(i) and y(i+1).
It should be noted that all damping ratios presented from this study are a result of both
soil and pile-group interaction and not just soil.

40
Table 5- 1: Symbolic area calculation by coordinates

Figure 5- 1: Load-Displacement data for Test 1 Pilecap 1

41
Figure 5-2 shows a plot of the first set of hysteresis loops for Test 1 Pilecap 1 with
graphical markers to help show one of the loops; the thick solid line defined by the peak
displacement points from one end of the loop to the other is the stiffness. Thereafter, calculations
are shown for the area, stiffness, total displacement, and the damping ratio for that particular
loop. The peaks on the hysteresis loops were a combination of peak displacement and peak load
unless one was obviously more pronounced than the other.
Table 5-2 summarizes the calculations for hysteresis Loop 1 on Test 1 Pilecap 1, and
Table 5-3 presents the area, stiffness, displacement, and damping ratio calculated for each loop.
These calculations and results are presented to show the methodology of obtaining the final
results. Calculations for the other pile caps and tests are presented in the Appendix.

42

Figure 5- 2: Loop 1 of the first set of hystersis loops on Test 1 Pilecap 1

Table 5- 2: Area calculations of the first hysteresis loop

43

Table 5- 3: Area, stiffness, displacement, and damping for Loop 1

5.2 Results
This section summarizes the results obtained from this study. The results are divided
between the various soil improvement types. Table 5-4 provides the mean, standard deviation,
the maximum minimum damping ratios along with shear strain values for each material. It is
easy to see that the ranges for all of the tests fall within the ranges of the previous studies
presented earlier, with exception of the pile group surrounded by jet-grout columns. Shear strain
was calculated using the following equation 5-2 from Gazetas (1984). Several points must be
made in conjunction with equation 5-2. The equation is inherently for single piles and in that
particular case the factor of 2.5 in the denominator is correct. The factor will vary depending on
the material type and configuration according to a personal communication from Gazetas &
Rollins (2010). The original equation is given as

(5-2)

where
e
(z) effective shear strain at depth z, is Poissons ratio, b is the pile diameter, and y
d
(z)
is the lateral deflections at depth z. The average strain values were calculated based on an
44
assumed Poissons ratio of 0.4. The pile diameter was the single pile diameter of 12.75 inches
for the virgin clay and compacted fill. Though the equation is for single piles, this study will
assume the strains will be comparable for a pile group. This unfortunately presents an unknown
amount of uncertainty. The other treatments act as a composite pile and the widths were changed
accordingly.

Table 5- 4: Denominator factor for calculating shear strain

Virgin
Clay
Compacted
Fill
Sur. Jet-
Grout
Adj. Jet-
Grout
Flowable
Fill
New Flowable
Fill
Soil Mix
B (in) 12.75 12.75 126 144 105 120 105
B (ft) 1.06 1.06 10.5 12 8.75 10 8.75
L --- --- 10 12 5.5 6 10
L/B --- --- 0.95 1 0.63 0.6 1.14
Factor 2.5 2.5 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.95

The factors come from Skempton (1952) and each factor is based upon the L/B ratio. In
this case, L is depth from the surface of the soil treatment and B is width of the soil treatment
normal to the direction of loading. The applicable factor is in the far right column.

Table 5- 5: Denominator factors from Skempton (1951)

45

5.2.1 Results for Pile Group in Virgin Clay
The median PI is 19 for the profile of virgin clay. Using the Vucetic & Dobry data in
Figure 2- 10 for the average shear strain of virgin clay, the material damping ratio is about 13%.
The results from Vucetic and Dobry all involve laboratory tests of varying sorts including
resonant columns, simple shear, and triaxial tests and the number of loading cycles varies from 1
to 1,000. These other tests are obviously setup differently from the full scale tests in this study
and may yield some differences.
These results and those presented here after are organized in three distinct parts. The first
chart is the data distribution or histogram of the damping ratio. The second chart shows the
computed damping ratio for each displacement increment plotted versus the number of cycles.
Finally, the third chart shows the mean, the mean plus-and-minus one standard deviation bounds
and the lower and upper boundaries.
The histogram for the pile group in virgin clay is presented in Figure 5-3 and 29 of the 55
data points have damping ratios which fall within the range of 14 to 25%. The histogram shows
a roughly normal trend, however, there is significant scatter and a strong right skew. The raw
data points are shown as damping ratios plotted against load cycle in Figure 5-4 for the pile
group in virgin clay. Figure 5-5 shows the mean, standard deviations, and upper and lower bound
ranges for damping ratio versus the number of loading cycles for virgin clay. It should be noted
that the upper and lower boundaries are limited to three standard deviations to filter out any
unreliable data. The upper and lower boundaries are plus and minus three standard deviations,
respectively. There are few items to point out. One of them is that at the minimum boundary the
46
magnitude of the damping ratio is very close to the minus one standard deviation. The damping
ratio at the second cycle is about 6% greater than the first and third cycles. This is most likely a
coincidence since the mean plus one standard deviation is relatively constant. Another anomaly
is there is a greater difference in magnitude between the upper boundary and the mean than the
lower boundary and the mean, this shows the distribution is not symmetric and validates the
skew seen in the histogram. A close examination of the raw data points show that the point
density is substantially lower in the upper regions which mean these points are possibly outliers,
the data distribution is not normal, or the data points follow the right skew.

Figure 5- 3: Virgin clay damping ratio histogram

47

Figure 5- 4: Virgin clay damping ratio for each load cycle

48

Figure 5- 5: Virgin clay damping ratio ranges

49
5.2.2 Results for Pile Group with Flowable Fill
The results for flowable fill are presented in a similar manner as for the virgin clay. The
histogram for this load test is provided in Fig. 5-6 and 42 of the 75 data points have damping
ratios which fall within the range from 14% to 25%. The histogram in Figure 5-6 shows a
normal distribution. Figure 5-7 shows the raw data for each loading cycle show some outlier
points in the upper regions. Figure 5-8 shows a consistent trend with the mean, standard
deviations, and the lower boundary, only the upper boundary is irregular. The upper boundary of
the damping ratio for the pile group in flowable for the first and third cycles are about 8 to 9%
greater than the second cycle. This is probably coincidental and these two points may be outliers
given the consistency with the mean, standard deviations, and the lower boundary.

50

Figure 5- 6: Flowable fill damping ratio histogram

51

Figure 5- 7: Flowable fill damping ratio for each loading cycle

52

Figure 5- 8: Flowable fill damping ratio ranges

53
5.2.3 Results for Pile Group with Soil Mix Wall
The results for the soil mix wall presented in a similar manner as for the previous two.
The histogram in Figure 5-9 shows almost no visible skew. The data show 23 of the 29 points
fall within the 14 to 25% damping ratio value. For a small number of points, the histogram
shows a close to normal distribution but this is uncertain.
The point density is less for the smaller damping ratio values on the first loading cycle
compared to the lower point density at higher damping ratio values for the second and third
loading cycles as seen in Figure 5-10. Figure 5-11 shows the mean, standard deviations, and
boundaries and validates the described trend. Only a couple points for each loading cycle change
the trend from being more consistent. It is difficult to say if these points are outliers or not
because of such a small of data points available for the soil mix wall.

54

Figure 5- 9: Soil mix wall damping ratio histogram

55

Figure 5- 10: Soil mix wall damping ratio for each load cycle

56

Figure 5- 11: Soil mix wall damping ratio ranges

57
5.2.4 Results for Pile Group Surrounded by Jet-Grout Columns
The results for the pile group surrounded by jet-grout columns are presented in a similar
manner as for the previous results in Figure 5-12. The histogram shows 18 of the 62 points fall
between the 14 to 33% damping ratio. The first important observation is the pile group
surrounded by jet-grout columns is substantially higher in damping ratio than any other material
and the spread has a lot of variation. This could be because cementitious materials are generally
heterogeneous materials and this may be a manifestation of that behavior. Soil in nature is
generally also a heterogeneous material but the borings from this particular site show this
particular soil stratum is relatively homogenous. Looking at the raw data in Figure 5-13 shows a
good portion of this is in the first loading. This could be because of a crushing effect after the
first load cycle decreasing the particle sizes. As stated before the damping ratio is the highest of
any other material. A possible reason might be the setup is creating an equivalent pier effect.
Cementitious materials also have a much higher modulus of elasticity than soil. The mean and
standard deviations in Figure 5-14 show a relatively constant relationship between load cycles
and damping ratio except for the variation seen in the first loading cycle. Up until this point in
stating the results, the damping ratio has only marginally improved at best with the previous
three soil treatments. The pile group surrounded by jet-grout columns increases the mean
damping ratio but still not very much. Also, the number of loading cycles seems to be of little or
no importance as to the change of damping ratio but it is difficult to say given only three cycles.
This will be revisited in the conclusion section.

58

Figure 5- 12: Surrounding jet-grout columns damping ratio histogram

59

Figure 5- 13: Surrounding jet-grout columns damping ratio for each load cycle

60

Figure 5- 14: Surrounding jet-grout columns damping ratio regions

5.2.5 Results for Pile Group with Adjacent Jet-grout Columns
The results for the adjacent jet-grout columns are presented in a similar manner as for the
previous results. The data spread is very consistent, shown in the histogram in Figure 5-15 which
is likely not a normal distribution. The histogram shows 18 of the 41 points fall within the 14 to
25% damping ratio value. These results are closer to the first three tests, lending to a difference
between the cemented material surrounding the pilecap rather than being adjacent to it. The raw
data is presented in Figure 5-16 and confirms the consistency of the data points. The mean and
standard deviations range, in Figure 5-17, show a steady trend for damping ratio regardless.
61

Figure 5- 15: Adjacent jet-grout columns damping ratio histogram

62

Figure 5- 16: Adjacent jet-grout columns damping ratio for each load cycle

63

Figure 5- 17: Adjacent jet-grout columns damping ratio regions

64
5.2.6 Results for Pile Group with Compacted Fill
The results for the compacted fill are presented in a similar manner. The histogram is
presented in Figure 5-18 with 20 of the 42 points being in the 14 to 25% damping ratio range.
The data spread shows again a roughly normal distribution. The raw data is presented in Figure
5-19 which shows a relatively consistent point density for all of the load cycles. The mean,
standard deviations, and the boundaries are seen in Figure 5-20 and the trend seems to be
relatively constant. With this in mind, this trend matches Rollins et al. (2009) which deals with
granular soils.

Figure 5- 18: Compacted fill damping ratio histogram
65

Figure 5- 19: Compacted fill damping ratio for each load cycle

66

Figure 5- 20: Compacted fill damping ratio regions

67
5.2.7 Results for Pile Group New Flowable Fill
The results for the new flowable fill are presented in a similar manner as for the previous
results. The data distribution, in Figure 5-21, is right skewed with only a couple of outliers. Also
shown is 30 of the 39 points are within the 14 to 25% damping ratio range. The raw data, in
Figure 5-22, show a very large outlier of about 41% at the first load cycle. The mean and the
minus one standard deviation trend lines, in Figure 5-23, increase by about 5% and 10%,
respectively, from the first loading cycle to the third. It is difficult to ascertain a certain
mechanism since there are so few data points.

Figure 5- 21: New flowable fill damping ratio histogram
68

Figure 5- 22: New flowable fill damping ratio for each load cycle

69

Figure 5- 23: New flowable fill damping ratio regions

5.3 Summary
Through the course of reporting these results there have been unexplainable jumps of the
damping ratio, usually at the second cycle, or unexplainable outliers. The reader must remember
that the damping ratios calculated in this study arent just for the soil or soil treatment but for the
soil or soil treatment and pile group interaction. With that in mind, the damping ratio still appears
to be minimally affected by the soil treatment, the best being the surrounding jet-grout columns
with a median damping ratio of about 50% and a mean damping ratio of about 64%. The fact that
70
only three loading cycles were applied gives a limited view of damping. However, with the data
available from Vucetic & Dobry (1991), material damping can be calculated, given a PI and
shear strain. In Table 5-6 is the findings of damping ratio for this study, including median, mean,
standard deviation, maximum, and minimum damping ratio values. Shear strain is also included
and differences can be seen between the materials treated as single piles (virgin clay and
compacted fill) and those treated as equivalent piers. As stated in chapter 2, according to Vucetic
& Dobry (1991) the material damping is about 13% (for virgin clay) which is over half of the
damping contribution of the total damping ratio which goes against the earlier hypothesis. In
regards to the shear strain, since the compacted fill and virgin clay were treated as individual
piles, shear strain was simply assumed to be comparable to that of the whole pile group.
Unfortunately, this presents a bit of uncertainty in the analysis.

Table 5- 6: Summary of findings from this study
Damping Ratio Shear Strain
Median Mean Std Deviation Max Min Block or Pile Group
Virgin Clay 19.6% 23.7% 12.0% 57.6% 5.2% 0.21%
Flowable Fill 22.4% 22.2% 7.9% 44.5% 7.7% 0.06%
Soil Mix 17.7% 18.7% 6.3% 33.1% 6.2% 0.05%
Surrounding Jet-Grout Columns 52.8% 64.9% 52.8% 256.1% 12.3% 0.01%
Adjacent Jet-Grout Columns 25.6% 25.0% 8.2% 40.0% 9.5% 0.02%
Compacted Fill 26.1% 27.3% 9.9% 61.6% 9.9% 0.27%
New Flowable Fill 19.1% 19.0% 10.8% 72.6% 2.1% 0.07%

71
5.4 Reconciliation of Differences
There are some similarities and differences in damping ratio between our study and those
conducted by others. All of the damping ratio values for the virgin clay in this study match fairly
well with the other studies presented. All of differences are relatively small and within our own
standard deviation.
When dealing with damping ratio, it is important to know the contribution of both
material and radiation damping. Hysteretic damping can be calculated by using the various
charts presented in Chapter 2 if strain and PI are known. The total damping can calculated with
a hysteresis loop. The difference between the two is the radiation damping.
There are minor differences between this study and Halling et. al. 2000; their average
values are between 5 and 10% lower than this study. This may or may not be the result of
different vibration inducing machines. From the study on coarse gravels in Rollins et. al. 2009
there was little change in damping ratio with number of loading cycles. Their average is between
25% and 35%, this matches up reasonably well with these results. The results from this study
have much more scatter than Rollins et. al. 2009 but the mean and standard deviation are within
the range. The damping ratio given by Gazetas (1975) for radiation damping also matches up
very well.

72

73
6 Conclusions
1. The measured damping ratio for the pile group in virgin clay was about 20% with a
standard deviation of about 12%.
2. For most of the soil improvement treatments involved (flowable fill, soil mixing, and
compacted fill, jet grouting adjacent to cap), the damping ratio was relatively unaffected
by the treatment process. Mean damping ratios for these cases were typically 18% to
28% with a standard deviation of 6% to 10%.
3. Jet grouting around the pile group itself led to an increase in the mean damping ratio of
about 100% relative to the pile group in virgin clay. The damping ratio increased to a
value of 50% to 60% with a standard deviation of about 50%. This may be due to the
formation of a large equivalent pier which acts like a large single pile.
4. For the displacement levels involved in these tests, the damping ratio was relatively
unaffected by the number of cycles or the static displacement level at which the cyclic
test was performed.
5. For the shear strain levels of the virgin clay and compacted fill involved in this testing
program (0.2%), the material (hysteretic) damping would be expected to be about 13%.
This suggests that the majority of the damping measured in this testing program would be
a result of material damping rather than the expected radiation damping stated in chapter
2.
74

75
References
Crawford, W. G. 2002. Construction Surveying and Layout. 3rd ed. Creative Construction
Publishing.
Gazetas, G. 1975. Foundation Engineering Handbook. Ed. H. F. Winterkorn and H. Y. Fang.
Van Nostrand Reinhold New York.
Gazetas, G., and R. Dobry. 1984. Horizontal response of piles in layered soils. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 110, no. 1: 20-40.
Gazetas, G., and K. M. RollinsLetter to C. A. Lundgreen. 2010. [Fwd: Re: Shushi Eater]. July
28. https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#label/Project/12a1ab182c83fb45.
Halling, M. W., K. C. Womack, I. Muhamad, and K. M. Rollins. 2000. Vibrational testing of a
full-scale pile group in soft clay. In Proc. 12th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Auckland. Vol. 1745.
Hardin, B. O., and V. P. Drnevich. 1972. Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations
and curves. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE 98, no. 7:
667-692.
Kramer, S. L. 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall.
Rollins, K. M. 2007. Quarterly Progress Report to the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) on Project 24-30. Quarterly Progress Report. Project 24-30. National
Highway Cooperative Research Program (NHCRP), December.
Rollins, K. M., M. D. Evans, and N. B. Diehl. 1998. Shear modulus and damping relationships
for gravels. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 124, no.
5: 396-405.
Rollins, K. M., T. M. Gerber, and K. H. Kwon. 2009. Increased Lateral Abutment Resistance
from Gravel Backfills of Limited Width. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE 136, no. 1: 230-238.
Seed, H. B., R. T. Wong, I. M. Idriss, and K. Tokimatsu. 1986. Moduli and Damping Factors for
Dynamic Analyses of Cohesionless Soils. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE
112, no. 11: 1016-1032.
76
Skempton, A. W. 1952. The Bearing Capacity of Clays. In Soil Mechanics Papers Presented at
the Building Research Congress 1951, 180. National Research Council, Canada.
Vucetic, M., and R. Dobry. 1991. Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 117, no. 1: 89-107.
Zhang, J., R. D. Andrus, and C. H. Juang. 2005. Normalized shear modulus and material
damping ratio relationships. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE 131, no. 4: 453-464.

77
Appendix

Appendix A Raw Data
Following are the raw data of load-displacement curves for each test and pilecap with their
respective load, damping ratio, area of hysteresis loop, displacement, and stiffness.

78

Figure A- 1: Test 1 pilecap 1 raw data

Table A- 1: Test 1 pilecap 1 results

79



80



81



82



83



84



85



86



87



88



89



90



91


Table A- 14: Test 9 pilecap 2 raw data

92



93



94



95



96



97



98



99



100



101



102



103



104



105



614 Christopher Chud Lundgreen 2010 KR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

614 Christopher Chud Lundgreen 2010 KR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Damping Ratios for Laterally Loaded Pile Groups in

Fine Grained Soils and Improved Soils

You might also like