8 views

Uploaded by Fakhri Fadzil

fdsfdsfds

- IntroGeomechanics_JRM
- soil set-up
- 6.Rock Testing(Dr.tejas Thaker)
- ATENA 2D Users Manual
- 89TOBCTJ
- 2D and 3D Numerical Simulations of Reinforced Embankments on Soft Ground
- Hawang Et Al 2001
- Direct Method From Binh
- c80
- Axial Loading
- GFC TB02 Bearing Capacity of Geopier Supported Foundations
- sheetpile - P1
- index.pdf
- GB6 Shear Strength
- Shear Strength Behaviour of Bamboo Fiber Reinforced Soil
- Paper4-Yuan and Ju-Hybrid Isotropic El-pl-damage-healing Model for Partially Saturated Soils-Ver9
- ARMA-04-523_Estimation of the Hydro-Mechanical Behavior on Rock Joints Through the Shear Model
- 751
- ARMA-85-0395-1_A Constitutive Law for Shear Behavior of Rock Joints
- Book

You are on page 1of 8

Crystal Cox

GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc., Virginia Beach, USA. E-mail: clcox@geronline.com

Paul Mayne

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA. E-mail:paul.mayne@ce.gatech.edu

Keywords: dilatometer, dilatometer testing, DMT, constitutive model, modeling, numerical analysis, shear

modulus, stiffness, stiffness reduction

ABSTRACT: Soil stiffness constitutive model parameters are required when investigating and/or modeling

stress-related deformations in geotechnical problems. The seismic dilatometer test (SDMT) can be used to

determine various stiffness related parameters. This paper discusses utilizing SDMT to determine the

hardening plasticity parameters for the tangent modulus from primary oedometer loading (Eoed), secant

modulus in drained triaxial test (E50) , and unloading/reloading modulus (Eur), along with the nonlinear small

strain stiffness input parameters for the initial reference shear modulus (G0) at very small strains and shear

strain (0.7) at which Gs=0.722G0. The SDMT also provides evaluations of the soil strength and stress history

for input into numerical simulations.

the subsurface then provides the basis to produce a

Constitutive soil models consist of fundamental G- modulus reduction curve for each representative

relations or mathematical definitions of a materials soil type. Next, the G- modulus reduction curve is

physical properties that describe how that translated to an E- modulus reduction curve using

geomaterial responds to external loading. An elastic theory. The site specific E- modulus

example of a commonly-used constitutive relation is

reduction curve along with data obtained from

Hookes law relating stress and strain. Constitutive

models form the basis of computational models SDMT testing can then be used to determine

analyzing stress and deformation. Numerical-method modulus inputs for use in numerical simulations.

based analyses encountered in common geotechnical

software utilize various constitutive soil models to 2 ELASTIC MODULI OF GEOMATERIALS

characterize site conditions and predict soil

response. Typical inputs to these models include Soil stiffness is a complicated phenomenon. In the

stiffness parameters of subsurface soils that are interest of simplicity, equivalent elastic soil stiffness

defined using variants of Youngs (elastic) modulus, parameters (elastic soil moduli) are defined as the

E. Elastic modulus variants such as secant modulus ratio of stress along an axis to strain along an axis

in drained triaxial test (E50), tangent modulus for and often employed in soil characterization and

primary oedometer loading (Eoed), as well as analyses. Eq. 1 states the linear relationship between

unloading/reloading modulus (Eur), are often stress and strain using the proportionality factor of

requested inputs in numerical analyses. Youngs (elastic) modulus, E:

The purpose of this paper is to address the E 1

determination of site-specific soil stiffness

However, equivalent elastic modulus values that

parameters for finite element analyses utilizing in- represent a simplification of true nonlinear soil

situ testing methods, as opposed to performing behavior are complex. Elastic soil moduli values are

rigorous laboratory testing. Small strain stiffness dependent on internal and external factors that

and nonlinear soil behavior can be determined include soil state factors of particle organization

utilizing SDMT. The fundamental shear modulus, (compaction), structural fabric, water content, stress

G0, is first determined for a soil profile using seismic history and cementation, along with loading factors

that include the mean stress level in the soil, mean seismic piezocone penetration tests (SCPTu), and

strain level in the ground, loading rate, loading spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW/MASW)

cycles and drainage characteristics (Briaud 2001). are common in-situ tests that measure the profile of

Providing a singular modulus value for a given soil shear wave velocity (Vs) with depth.

layer must include numerous considerations and Laboratory tests to determine Go for soils are also

adjustment factors and will also be a stress available (e.g., bender elements, resonant column),

dependent value. Given the complexity of modulus yet direct measurement by field tests such as the

definition, there are many available empirical SDMT are preferable to reliably determine Vs since

modulus relationships. However, these relations do lab results can be significantly affected by sample

not adequately describe the in-situ soil state or disturbance and stress relaxation issues, as well as

address stress dependency. Site specific laboratory greater expense in money and time.

testing is required to fully consider in-situ soil state

dependencies. Required triaxial and oedometer tests 4 NONLINEAR SOIL STIFFNESS AND

can be performed to more accurately determine STIFFNESS REDUCTION

stiffness values, but are most often time constrained

and cost prohibitive. When applied stresses produce strain levels, , that

Also of note is that many constitutive models use exceed the small strain limit of s < 10-6, the

a reference stress at an effective confining stress of 1 corresponding values of shear modulus G must

atmosphere (100 kPa) when defining a modulus utilize shear modulus reduction curves to obtain the

value and thus use the ref superscript. appropriate value of G since the modulus softens

Under applied shear stress, a given material will with increased loading. The resulting hyperbolic

exhibit deformation and distortion. Shear modulus behavior demonstrates the nonlinear behavior of

(or modulus of rigidity), G, is a measure relating soils subject to increased stress.

shear stress to shear strain. For small strains, the Hyperbolic G- modulus reduction curves follow

shear modulus G is related to Youngs Modulus, E, the typical behavior indicated by Fig. 1 (Hardin &

as follows through elasticity theory as applies to Drnevich, 1972). The representative Hardin-

material properties: Drnevich curve is defined as:

2 1 2 1

6

where = Poissons ratio, represents the elastic 1

character of a material:

where ref = reference strain as detailed later.

3

HardinDrnevichShearModulusDegradationCurve

where lat = strain in the lateral direction and long = 1.2

strain in the longitudinal direction. The value of Go,

1

the fundamental small strain soil stiffness at initial

loading is: 0.8

4 0.6

G/Go

wave velocity. 0.4

the fundamental elastic Young's modulus Eo can be

0

represented as:

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

2 1 5 /ref

MODULUS (after Hardin and Drnevich 1972)

In-situ seismic testing methods can be used to The general Hardin-Drnevich relation has been

discern Go for various geomaterials. Geophysical further modified to include scaling factors in order

crosshole seismic surveys, downhole surveys, to achieve a best fit hyperbolic model of modulus

suspension logging, seismic dilatometer (SDMT), reduction for various soil types based on laboratory

testing. The scaling factors are seen in the inclusion

of a power exponent () as shown in Eq. 7 terms of a normalized reference shear strain. The

(Vardenega & Bolton 2011), or alternatively, a reference shear strain in the Hardin-Drnevich

multiplicative factor (a) as shown in Eq. 8 (Santos & equation is equal to the maximum shear stress or

Correia, 2003). failure stress max divided by the fundamental shear

1 modulus G0, thus:

7

1 9

G

1 The Vardenega and Bolton relation given in Eq. 7

8 is formulated after Dardeneli (2001) and Zhang et.

1 al. (2005) with the power exponent based on the

definition that the secant shear stiffness reduces to

The modified Hardin-Drnevich G- expression half its initial maximum value (G/G0 = 0.5) when =

curves are the basis for modulus reduction curves

ref. The determination of ref is provided by

used in several numerical modeling suites. The value

Vardenega and Bolton (2011) as a function of

of a = 0.385 in Eq. 8 after Santos and Correia (2003)

is common to many hardening soil models (Benz, plasticity index, liquid limit, plastic limit or void

2007). ratio, with reasonable agreement for the silts and

The validation of the G- degradation curves clays studied.

from Santos & Correia (2003) utilized both sand and The Santos and Correia (2003) relation given in

clay sites where a = 0.385 was found to be a best fit. Eq. 8 uses the volumetric threshold shear strain tv=

The G- reduction curves from Vardenega & Bolton ref = 0.7 as a reference strain. The volumetric

(2011) are based on a database of 20 silty and clayey threshold shear strain indicates the strain limit at

soils sites where =0.74 was found to be a best fit. which irreversible change occurs in the soil structure

Fig. 2 shows the best fit reduction curves from the (Vucetic & Dobry, 1991). This strain limit has been

two approaches. As shown in Fig. 2, the use of the given as the strain level at which the ratio of G/G0 is

power model of Eq. 7 gives a more rapid reduction equal to 0.722 corresponding to a 27.8% reduction

in modulus (Vucetic, 1994). For this reason, the

of stiffness than does the multiplicative factor a

reference value for volumetric shear strain is

model of Eq. 8.

abbreviated as 0.7. Most numerical modeling

software include the values of G0 and 0.7 as inputs to

define the stiffness reduction relationship for various

geomaterials. The reason given for normalization

using the volumetric threshold shear strain 0.7 is that

the stiffness reduction becomes less prone to errors.

(Benz, 2007).

The normalization of shear strain given in Eq. 9

has been shown to remove some limitations in

characterizing behavior using different test modes,

such as triaxial and direct shear testing (Drnevich,

1981). It has been shown when using a normalized

reference shear strain as a function of max as shown

in Eq. 9, stress-strain curves for undrained and

drained tests on like samples are approximately the

Fig. 2. Reduction curves from fitted experimental data same.

studies Studies of the deformation parameters of Sydney

kaolin using stress history and normalized soil

5 REFERENCE STRAIN engineering properties (SHANSEP) methods

(Poulos, 1974 & 1978) address the determination of

A commonality to both of the aforementioned G- drained and undrained deformation parameters from

modulus reduction relations is the normalization of triaxial testing. Drained secant elastic moduli (E),

shear strain. The original Hardin-Drnevich formula- undrained secant elastic moduli (Eu), drained

tion for hyperbolic stiffness reduction is given in Poissons ratio () values and undrained Poissons

ratio (u) values were examined when utilizing

various modes of triaxial testing at varying

mobilized strengths. Testing modes included

constant rate drained loading, constant rate

undrained loading, one-stage dead loading under

anisotropic initial stress conditions with drained

conditions and two-stage dead loading under

anisotropic initials stress conditions with undrained

conditions followed by drained conditions.

Specimens were studied with respect to

normalization by the initial effective vertical strain

and overconsolidation ratio (OCR).

Findings of the study indicated that undrained

and drained deformation parameters showed good Fig. 4. Normalized drained and undrained secant

agreement when normalized using SHANSEP and modulus value with regression (Poulos, 1978)

are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. The study also showed

that triaxial testing using isotropic initial state be determined using SDMT testing via GDMT, the

stresses yielded significantly larger values of Eu and shear modulus at working strains. The working

strain GDMT can be determined from SDMT testing

E than did anisotropic initial state tests and that

using elastic theory as follows:

accurately determining a value of Eu from triaxial

testing was difficult. 10

2 1 / 1 2

where MDMT is the constrained modulus from SDMT

testing corresponding to a working strain. The

assumption that MDMT represents a working strain

value of the constrained modulus is based on

previous studies and predictions including those by

Monaco et. al. (2006) and Marchetti et. al. (2008).

It should be noted, however, that when using Eq.

(10), the value of Poissons ratio, , cannot be equal

to 0.5, else the value of GDMT is undefined.

Once the value of working strain shear modulus

GDMT is determined, the working shear strain DMT

corresponding with GDMT must be determined in

order to construct the G- modulus degradation

Fig. 3. Normalized drained and undrained secant

modulus value with respect to OCR (Poulos, 1978) curve. Previous studies as detailed by Amoroso et

al. (2012) have estimated typical ranges of DMT in

6 DMT-BASED MODULUS REDUCTION different soil types using stiffness decay curves that

CURVES are backfigured from the observed field behavior

under full-scale loading, obtained by cyclic and

The seismic flat plate dilatometer can be used to dynamic laboratory tests or reconstructed by the

generate a complete G- modulus reduction curve combined use of different in situ and laboratory

for a representative soil type. Hybrid geotechnical- techniques. Typical ranges of DMT are approximated

geophysical tests such as the SDMT provide a as DMT 0.010.45 % in sand, DMT 0.11.9 % in

means to economically and expediently evaluate G0 silt and clay, DMT > 2 % in soft clay (Amoroso et.

profiles in various geomaterials. As shown by al., 2012).

Amoroso (2012), after determining G0 at small A G- modulus degradation curve determined

strains, an additional point should be determined on using in-situ SDMT testing is shown in Fig. 5 for a

the stress-strain curve in order to develop the G- stiff clay soil at a research site in Perth, Australia

response via the modified hyperbolic equations. The (Fahey et. al., 2003). The fundamental small strain

additional point on the modulus reduction curve can soil stiffness, Go, was determined from seismic shear

wave velocity measurements. The working strain

shear modulus, GDMT, was then determined and the 1

G- modulus degradation curve was constructed 11

using Eqs. 6, 7 and 8 along with the soil parameters

from SMDT testing found in Table 1 (Amoroso et. where EDDMT is defined as the modulus obtained

al., 2012). from DMT testing used to define the E-

degradation curve.

Table 1. Modulus Parameters Perth, Australia The secant modulus in drained triaxial testing at

Shear wave velocity, Vs 334 m/s

50 percent strength E50 can also be determined using

Fundamental shear wave modulus, Go 212 MPa values obtained from SDMT testing. Where

Constrained modulus from DMT, MDMT 52 MPa according to Vermeer (2001),

Poissons ratio, 0.30 12

Working strain shear modulus, GDMT 15 MPa From the stiffness degradation curve and using

Normalized Working strain shear 0.07 Eq. 5, 10 and 11, the constrained tangent modulus

modulus, GDMT/Go Eoed (EDDMT), can be plotted on the curve as shown

Working shear strain, DMT 1.5 % in Fig. 7. The working shear strain DMT must also

Maximum shear stress, max 225 kPa be determined as the abscissa to the value of EDDMT

(or GDMT) as previously discussed.

The unloading/reloading modulus in the

drained/undrained triaxial test, Eur, cannot readily be

determined using data obtained from DMT testing

and must be calculated using accepted relationships

if not using laboratory testing such as that given by

Vermeer (2001),

4 13

One will note that when viewing the stiffness

degradation curve, E50 is the smallest of the modulus

values discussed. Most numerical programs maintain

an elastic stiffness cutoff at Eur (corresponding to

Gur), where hardening plasticity accounts for further

stiffness reductions.

Advanced hardening models include the values of

Fig. 5. G- modulus degradation curves utilizing Go and 0.7 as inputs to define the nonlinearity and

in-situ testing small strain stiffness relationships for various

geomaterials. Once Go is determined from seismic

7 CONSTITUTIVE MODEL APPLICATIONS: shear wave velocity testing, the stiffness degradation

ELASTIC MODULUS VALUES curve can be used to define 0.7 or various

correlations have been developed to define the

Constitutive models that analyze stress and value. This strain limit has been given as the strain

deformation in geotechnical analyses require level at which the ratio of G/Go is equal to 0.722,

stiffness parameters of geomaterials as inputs. thus using the degradation curve and the ordinate of

Typical inputs to these models include stiffness 0.722, the corresponding abscissa will yield 0.7.

parameters of subsurface soils that are defined using

variants of Youngs (elastic) modulus, E. Once the

8 CONSTITUTIVE MODEL APPLICATIONS:

G- modulus degradation curve is determined using

STRENGTH AND STRESS HISTORY

in-situ testing, a corresponding E- modulus

degradation curve can be constructed using Hookes Although the focus of this paper was on required

law and Eq. 2. The associated E- modulus stiffness parameter inputs for constitutive models,

degradation curve corresponding to the G- modulus strength and stress history input values for

degradation curve produced in Fig. 5 is shown in geomaterials are also needed in a numerical model.

Fig. 6. DMT testing also provides strength evaluations of

The constrained (tangent) modulus is determined friction angle (') and undrained shear strength (cu)

through SDMT testing and is referred to in this and the stress history parameters concerning lateral

paper as MDMT. For normally consolidated soils, stresses (Ko), overconsolidation ratio (OCR), and

soil unit weight (). Additional strength definitions

such as dilatancy angle () can be determined 19

10

indirectly, using existing correlations.

Total unit weight can be estimated from soil type

and relative density or from SDMT as follows

(Mayne et al., 2002) where w is unit weight of

water, ED is dilatometer modulus, pa is atmospheric

pressure and ID is material index.

.

.

1.12 20

determined from SDMT testing. A correlation

between in-situ state parameter (0) based on DMT

testing is provided where a negative value indicates

soils denser than critical state and a positive value

indicates soils looser than the critical state (Yu,

Fig. 6. E- modulus degradation curve constructed 2004):

using G- modulus degradation curve

0.002 0.015 0.0026 21

the volume change of void ratio as follows based on

relative density, index, Dr and relative dilatancy

index, Ir (Bolton, 1986):

5 1 0 4 22

Plane strain conditions: =6.25

Triaxial conditions: =3.75

Cohesive soils may exhibit no dilatancy at all and

can be generally classified as given in Table 2

(Obrzud & Truty, 2010):

Fig. 7. E- modulus degradation curve

Table 2. Dilatancy of Cohesive Soils

Marchettis relationships for friction angle (') Normally consolidated or lightly

for sands, undrained shear strength of clays (cu) = 0

consolidated Soil

lateral at rest pressure (Ko), and OCR are typically Overconsolidated soil = /3

used values as defined as functions of horizontal Heavily overconsolidated soil = /6

stress index (KD) as follows (Marchetti 1997):

28 14.61 2.1 14 9 CONCLUSIONS

.

0.22 0.5 15

. Site-specific soil stiffness parameters were examined

0.6 16 for use in soil modeling applications, particularly

.

finite element simulations. Seismic shear wave

OCR 0.5 . 17 velocity testing provides the fundamental small-

An alternative relationship for friction angle () strain shear modulus, G0, for a soil profile.

is as follows (Campanella & Robertson, 1991): Dilatometer testing of the soils was used to produce

. a G- decay curve of a representative geomaterial by

0.8 establishing the working strain shear modulus GDMT

37.3 18

0.8 corresponding to a working shear strain DMT. The

An alternative relationship for undrained shear G- reduction curve was then translated into a E-

strength (cu) based on the corrected first pressure decay curve using the theory of elasticity.

reading (po) and hydrostatic porewater pressure (uo) The use of a reference strain or threshold strain

is as follows (Schmertmann, 1981): according to Hardin-Drnevich (1972) may prove

useful if the reduction relationship can be easily Soil, ASTM STP 740, R.N. Yong and F.C. Townsend,

implemented in numerical models. Utilizing a Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials,

West Conshohocken, PA: pp.387-409.

reference shear strain according to work by Fahey, M. Lehane, B.M. and Stewart, D. (2003) Soil

Drnevich (1979, 1981) is well suited to in-situ stiffness for shallow foundation design in the Perth

geomaterial characterization as drainage conditions CBD, Australian Geomechanics Journal, 38(2): 61-

are accounted for. Response of undrained and 89.

drained kaolin soils under triaxial testing as Hardin, B.O. & Drnevich, V.P. (1972) Shear modulus

performed by Poulos provide additional and damping in soils: design equations and curves,

Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations

compatability of drained and undrained conditions Division (ASCE), Vol 98, No. SM7, pp.667-691.

when measuring modulus values. Marchetti, S. (1997). The flat dilatometer: design

Available advanced hardening soil models for applications Third Geotechnical Engineering

numerical modeling utilize tv = 0.7 at this time. Conference, Cairo University: 421-448.

More understanding of the applicability of the Marchetti, S., Monaco, P., Totani, G, & Marchetti, D.

(2008). In situ tests by seismic dilatometer (SDMT)

volumetric cyclic threshold shear strain and its From Research to Practice in Geotechnical

implications within static loading cases may be Engineering, Geot. Special Publication No 180, J.E.

warranted. Laier, D.K. Crapps & M.H. Hussein Eds., ASCE,

Evaluation of soil strength and stress history Reston, VA: pp. 292-311.

utilizing SDMT was also addressed. In summary, Mayne, P., Christopher, B., Berg, R. & DeJong, J. (2002)

constitutive model parameters can be well defined Subsurface Investigations Geotechnical Site

Character-ization, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-01-

for various geomaterials when utilizing in-situ 031 National Highway Institute, FHWA, Washington,

testing methods, specifically SDMT testing, which D.C., 301 pages.

can be performed both on land and offshore. Further Monaco, P., Totani, G, & Calabrese, M. (2006). DMT

investigation into working shear strain values, DMT, predicted vs observed settlements: A review of the

corresponding with working shear modulus, GDMT, available experience Proc. 2nd International

Conference on the Flat Dilatometer, Arlington, VA:

could also benefit in-situ stiffness characterization. pp. 244-252

Orbzud, R. & Truty, A. (2010). The hardening soil

10 REFERENCES model A practical Guidebook Technical Report Z

Soil.PC 100701, Lausanne, August 2010.

Amaroso, S., Lehane B.M. & Fahey, M. (2012). Poulos, H.G. (1978). Normalized deformation

Determining G- decay curves in sand from a parameters for kaolin Geotechnical Testing Journal.

Seismic Dilatometer Test (SDMT). Geotechnical and GTJODJ. Vol. 1. No. 2, June 1978. pp.102-106.

Geophysical Site Character-ization 4, Vol. 1 (Proc. Poulos, H.G. & Ahlston, A.T. (1974). A study of the

ISC-4, Pernambuco), Taylor & Francis Group, deformation parameters of kaolin First Australian

London: 489-497. Conference on Engineering Materials. The University

Amaroso, S., Monaco P. & Marchetti, D. (2012). Use of of New South Wales, 1974, pp.371-384.2, June 1978,

the Seismic Dilatometer (SDMT) to estimate in-situ pp. 102-1

G- decay curves in various soil types. Geotechnical Santos, J.A., Gomes Correia, A., Modaressi, A., Lopez-

and Geophysical Site Characterization, Vol. 1 (Proc. Caballero, F., & Gomes, R. (2003). Validation of an

ISC-4, Pernambuco), Taylor & Francis Group, elasto-plastic model to predict secant shear modulus

London: 447-452. of natural soils by experimental results Deformation

Benz, T. (2007). Small-strain stiffness of soils and its Characteristics of Geomaterials, Vol. 1, Di Benedetto

numer-ical consequences. PhD Thesis, Universitat et al., Eds., Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse: 1057-1061.

Stuttgart. Schmertmann, J. (1981). Discussion. Journal of the

Bolton, M. (1986). The strength and dilatancy of sands. Geotechnical Division, ASCE, Vol 107 No GT6, pp.

Gotechnique 36(1): 65-78. 831-832, June 1981.

Briaud, J.-L., (2001) Introduction to Soil Moduli, Vardenega, P.J. and Bolton, M. (2011). Practical

Geotechnical News, June 2001. methods to estimate the non-linear shear stiffness of

Campanella, R.G. & Robertson, P.K. (1991) Use and fine grained soils International Symposium on

interpretation of a research dilatometer, Canadian Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, Vol. 1,

Geotechnical Journal, 28 (1): pp.113-126. Hanrimwon Company, Seoul, Korea: 372-379.

Dardenelli, M.B. (2001) Development of a new family Vermeer, P.A. (2001). On single anchored retaining

of normalized modulus reduction and material walls Plaxis Bulletin 10.

damping curves, PhD Thesis, Dept. Civil Vucetic, M. (1994), "Cyclic threshold shear strains in

Engineering, University of Texas at Austin. soils". Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (ASCE),

Drnevich, V.P. (1979) Evaluation of sample disturbance Vol. 120 (12): 2208-2228.

on soils using the concept of reference strain, Final Vucetic, M. and Dobry, R. (1991). Effect of soil

report submitted to the U.S. Army Engineer plasticity on cyclic response Journal of Geotechnical

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. on Engineering (ASCE), Vol. 117 (1): 89-107.

Contract No. DACWJ9-78-C-0046, May 1979. Yu, H.S. (2004) In situ soil testing: from mechanics to

Drnevich, V.P. (1981) Normalized stress-strain for interpretation The 1st James K. Mitchell Lecture,

undrained shear tests, Laboratory Shear Strength of

Proc. 2nd International Conference on Site

Characterization. ISC-2, Porto, 1, 3-38.

Zhang, J., Andrus, R.D. and Juang, C.H. (2005)

Normalized shear modulus and material damping

ratio relationships Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering (ASCE). Vol. 131 (4):

453-464.

- IntroGeomechanics_JRMUploaded byTomas Ricardo Nava Carreon
- soil set-upUploaded byChung Yiung Yung
- 6.Rock Testing(Dr.tejas Thaker)Uploaded byRakesh7770
- ATENA 2D Users ManualUploaded bySana'a Aamir
- 89TOBCTJUploaded byBoita Emanuela
- 2D and 3D Numerical Simulations of Reinforced Embankments on Soft GroundUploaded byRaúl Contreras
- Hawang Et Al 2001Uploaded bymosa7489
- Direct Method From BinhUploaded byTrần Đại
- c80Uploaded byLTE002
- Axial LoadingUploaded byjay subban
- GFC TB02 Bearing Capacity of Geopier Supported FoundationsUploaded bymichalakis483
- sheetpile - P1Uploaded byTanvir Shahrier Mahmud
- index.pdfUploaded byYudheesh Ishan
- GB6 Shear StrengthUploaded byericastorgaluco
- Shear Strength Behaviour of Bamboo Fiber Reinforced SoilUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Paper4-Yuan and Ju-Hybrid Isotropic El-pl-damage-healing Model for Partially Saturated Soils-Ver9Uploaded byKuoyao Yuan
- ARMA-04-523_Estimation of the Hydro-Mechanical Behavior on Rock Joints Through the Shear ModelUploaded bycastille1956
- 751Uploaded byسارة المالكي
- ARMA-85-0395-1_A Constitutive Law for Shear Behavior of Rock JointsUploaded bycastille1956
- BookUploaded byKaustav Chatterjee
- OP_029.pdfUploaded byNadeem Abbasi
- DA4SHEARUploaded byTapash Paul
- 04_User Manual_Chapter4_Mesh.pdfUploaded byJakub Świdurski
- popUploaded byserçin
- Grs Road-giroundge04 Discge06 AsceUploaded byShreyas Pranav
- A1_628 Rear Header Assembly-FEA-1.pdfUploaded bySee Kiat Pang
- 244-1-CTRUploaded byManoj Manu
- Improved Mat72Uploaded byAnonymous uIWiqY6
- OTC-5796-MS.pdfUploaded byChinmaya Ranjan Jena
- Ppr2014.458maUploaded byshachen2014

- CoverUploaded byFakhri Fadzil
- Full TextUploaded byFakhri Fadzil
- soildescription.pdfUploaded byFakhri Fadzil
- Presentation Pavement (Plastic)Uploaded byFakhri Fadzil
- Chapter 1Uploaded byFakhri Fadzil
- 4620-4630_ENUploaded byFakhri Fadzil
- 1976.2Uploaded byFakhri Fadzil
- 16April2015 Final OtsuboetalRev1 ManuscriptUploaded byFakhri Fadzil
- Hello WorldUploaded byFakhri Fadzil
- HackUploaded byFakhri Fadzil

- 1ª Lista de ExercíciosUploaded byJoziel Souza
- FEMUploaded byAkash Prabhakaran
- Extractive Metallurgy of Aluminium PDFUploaded byRachel
- 3d Integrated CircuitsUploaded byPradeep Cheekatla
- MS 1462-2-2-2010 (CONFIRMED 2015) SOILUploaded byGan Chin Phang
- Calculation of Air Duct Pressure Loss(Rectangular)Uploaded byPhyu Mar Thein Kyaw
- Toyota HiluxUploaded byVictor Javier
- Roadway Lighting Tech ReportUploaded byhoangpalestine
- Eigenvalue_definition.pdfUploaded bychoquistomate
- Conceptual Reactor Design, Multi-phase Reactors, Non-Isothermal ReactorsUploaded byCharles
- Ensuring Mold Steel PolishabilityUploaded bykengshing
- H2 Biology - Notes on BiomoleculesUploaded bySefLRho
- Atomic Structure 2009 Handouts FinalUploaded bySalma Khoirunnisa
- Questions & Answer of Gas TurbineUploaded bybalajisamatham
- Q Factor in Forest ManagementUploaded byBidya Nath
- GalvInfoNote_1_8 Penting!!!Uploaded byFabio Fabregas
- vw122cs nh1Uploaded byJosephCamacho
- Engineering Mechanics: Statics Lecture 1.pdfUploaded byKhalid Yousaf
- Digital Signal Processing Lab ManualUploaded byNiranjan Hegde
- Final SPPU -Mech- Structure _29.03.2016Uploaded byvitthalmech8687
- Experiment 6Uploaded bykang1995
- Contour Crafting SeminarUploaded byNavarang R Kobbe
- Work Energy PowerUploaded byforplancess
- G011273541.pdfUploaded bydeepak_gupta_priti
- Structural OptimizationUploaded bymighenao
- Manual Bomba de VacioUploaded byRuben Dario Casique
- Heat Transfer Rough Rice in a SiloUploaded byAlfonsoAlvites
- Pictorial NoteUploaded byGooftilaaAniJiraachuunkooYesusiin
- Mongoose Traveller ErrataUploaded byHeavy Metal Elf
- 200 WESS 4th Ed ContentsUploaded byPraneet Kumar