SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS Vol. 33, No. 1, 182-191, Mar. 1993 Japanese Socie oil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering UNIFIED DYNAMIC SHEAR MODULI AND DAMPING RATIOS OF SAND AND CLAY Isao IsHipasHt and XINSIAN ZHANG? ABSTRACT Available experimental data on dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios of various soils including non-plastic sands to highly plastic clays are collected. Those are reanalyzed and brought into simple unified formulas. The unified formulas express the dynamic shear moduli and the damping ratios in terms of maximum dynamic shear modulus, cyclic shear strain amplitude, mean effective confining pressure and soil’s plasticity index. Although the availability of experimental data on clay is still limited at this time, the formulas fit those data reasonably well and could be conveniently utilized in dynamic analyses such as seismic ground response and soil-structure interaction problems. Key words: clay, cyclic load, damping ratio, plasticity, sand, shear modulus, shear strain (GC: D7) available experimental data and an attempt is INTRODUCTION made to establish unified formulas for ‘Adequate information on dynamic soil prop- erties, especially dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio, is essential for accurate com- putations of ground response and soil-struc- ture interaction problems. Many experimental investigations mostly for sandy soils have been carried out and formulated for general use (Seed and Idriss, 1970; Hardin and Drnevich, 1972; Seed et al., 1986 and others). Since those developments on dynamic soil properties, considerable data for sandy soils have been accumulated and some data for highly plastic clays are available at: present time. In this paper the authors reanalyze those dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios to cover wide variety of soils ranging from sands to highly plastic clays such as Mexico City clay. Recently, a similar attempt was made by Vucetic and Dobry (1991). Their method, however, failed to include one of the signifi- cant parameters, namely, the effective mean normal stress as discussed by Ishibashi (1992). UNIFIED FORMULAS General Equations for Sandy Soils Many researchers (Hardin and Drnevich, 1972; Iwasaki et al., 1978; Tatsuoka et al., ° Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA. Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Maryland, formerly Visiting Scholar at Old Dominion University from Wuyi University, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China, Manuscript was received for review on January 22, 1992. Written discussion on this paper should be submitted before October 1, 1993 to the Japanese Sociery of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Sugayama Bldg. 4 F, Kenda Awaji-cho 2-23, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101, Japan. Upon Request the closing date may be extended one month, 182UNIFIED DYNAMIC SHEAR MODULI 183, 1978; Kokusho, 1980; Ishibashi, 1981 ) found that the equivalent shear modulus, G is generally expressed in the form: G=K() feos” a) Where K(y) is a decreasing function of the cyclic shear strain amplitude y, and is unity at very small y (<10~), f(e) is a function of void ratio ¢, do is the mean effective confining pressure, and power m()) is an increasing func- tion of 7. Gra, the maximum dynamic shear modulus is the maximum value of G and is usu- ally obtained at y=10"* or less. Therefore, Gras ist Gnax=Kof (5° Q ‘Where Ko=K (ys107°)=1.0 3) my=m(ys 10") Oy From Eqs. (1) and (2), Eq. (5) is obtained: G - =K (arom 6) 1.20 1.00 0.80 = 0.60 x 0.40 0.20 0.00 + 10* Cyclic Shear Strain Amplitude, y Fig. Eq. (5) can be rewritten in: Ge HOEK D+ {m()— mio} log Go (6) Khouri (1984) analyzed available experimental data (Drnevich and Richart, 1970; Seed and Idriss, 1970; Silver and Seed, 1971; Hashiba, 1971; Hardin and Drnevich, 1972; Kuribayashi et al., 1974 and 1975; Hara and Kiyota, 1976; Sherif and Ishibashi, 1976; Sherif et al., 1977; Iwasaki and Tatsuoka, 1977; Iwasaki et al., 1978; Tatsuoka et al., 1979; Uchida et al., 1980; Kim and Novak, 1981; Kokusho, 1981; Chung et al., 1984). Data were plotted on log G/ Gx and log do at various levels of y. m(y)—mo values were then determined from the slope and K (y) values from intersections at 6y=1.0 kN/m* axis for individual plots of various y. Figs. 1 and 2 show K (y) and m(y)—m values as a function of y, respectively. It shall be noted that K (y) versus y curve is a similar one to the Seed and Idriss’s (1970) G/Gnax versus y diagram but those are not necessarily comparable since the 10+ 10% 107 |. KG) versus y for sands (Khouri, 1984)184 ISHIBASHI AND ZHANG ‘Sevd and taries 970) Rasnioa (2973) Denevied and Richart (1970) Stiver and Seed (1973) 0.70 0.60 + | xurtoayarht et at 1970 Kotte (963) KRoteusho (1900) waren ot a 978) 0.50 ‘ardin and Draevich (1972) ‘Shertt an ieubasta (1970) Keetbayashl etal 1975) Kartbayashl etal G97 0.40 M( ¥ )—Mo (Chung, Youel and Denevich (19 ‘Tatsuoka tal 979) IWwasakt and Tateuoka (1977) Equation (8) 0.30 00|+ eoalocos eo] 0.20 0.10 0.00 107% 10+ Fig. 2. curve in Fig. 1 was developed specifically for G=1.0KN/m? while the Seed and Idriss’s curve was for Go=20 to 400 KN/m’ without considering the variation of m(y) with y. Both curves in Figs. 1 and 2 stay within rather nar- row ranges and the following equations were proposed to best fit data points: wes] o wm fo ™*F)] where y is expressed in raw strain (m/m). Ac- cordingly, do in Eq. (5) is expressed in kN/m?. Hyperbolic function was chosen so that the curves change slowly at low y values and ap- proach again slowly to limited values at high » ranges. K (y) is 1.0 at low y(<10-*), 0.5 (mid- value) at y=0,000102 and nearly 0.0 at y= 10~. Similarly, m(y)— mo is 0.0 at ys 10-5, 0.272 (mid-value) at y=0.000556 and 0.544 at 10 10 Cyclic Shear Strain Amplitude, ¥ 107 ‘m(7)—mg versus 7 for sands (Khouri, 1984) y=l0-. Hardin and Dmnevich (1972) and Tatsuoka et al. (1978) proposed that the damping ratio Dis expressed as a function of G/ Gas? vi(Z) Gas: Experimental data for D values from the same sources of the shear moduli calculation are plotted in Fig. 3 by using the form of Eq. (9). Plots are more scattered than previous plots for K (9) and m(y)—mo. However, consider- ing the fact that measurements of damping ratio are more sensitive and difficult than the shear modulus measurements and large damp- ing ratios would not attain until final stages of dynamic computations, the scatter of the data points is considered to be reasonably small. ‘The damping ratio, accordingly, was fitted by: Dasva=0.333 4 0.586 cy ee le sel) )UNIFIED DYNAMIC SHEAR MODULI 185 0.40 -—% 0.30 4 ° a 8 1. Damping Ratio, D 2 s L 0.00 0.20 0.40 D=0.333 is the maximum damping ratio at very high shear strain levels (y=10-*), where G/Gox ratio is nearly equal to zero. Dandsoux= 33.3% is a representative value from previous researchers (Hardin and Drnevich, 1972; Sherif et al., 1977; Tatsuoka et al., 1978) for sands. In Summary, Eqs. (5), (7), (8) for G values and Eq. (10) for D values are proposed as average equations to cover most types of sands. Modified Formulas for Plastic Soils (Silts and Clays) In contrast with sandy soils, the availability of comprehensive data on dynamic properties of silts and clays is limited.. Researchers (Kokusho et al., 1982; Dobry and Vueetic, 1987) reported that the modulus and the damp- ing ratios are significantly affected by soil’s plasticity index (/,). General observations for non-sandy soils are that: (1) K()) versus curve, such as Fig. 1 moves upper and to the ‘liver and seed (2973) Deneviets and Rishare (2970) Raribayash et ak 978) ‘Sherif er ae 1977) “Faesuoka etal (970) Uchida et a 900) Hara and Kiyoes (2970) Hahibe (2973) ‘Karthayashl ot al (£978) Kole (2980) Iwasa et at (2978) ‘Sood and tdriee (2970) Hardin and Denevieh (972) Equation (10) [+ |ewoeleece xno 1. Damping ratios versus G/ Ge for sands (Khouri, 1984) right-hand direction when /, increases, (2) for highly plastic clays, the effect of do on G value becomes negligible, that is, m(y) ~ mo function approaches to zero for high J, values regardless of y, and (3) the damping ratio D decreases with increasing J, value. Based on those observations, k(y), m(y)—mo and D equations are modified to include Jp: nko. Lap o-m an D=Daesna* A(Ip) (12) where A(J,) is a modification function for damping ratio applied to Eq. (10) of sands. All modifications are made so that Eqs. (11) and (12) reduce to Eqs. (5) and (10), respec- tively, at J,=0 to satisfy the continuity of material properties from sands to clays. m(y, [,)—mo function was first determined from limited laboratory data by the same pro- cedure used in m(y)—mo determination for sandy soils. Fig. 4 shows plots of m(y=10",186 ISHIBASHI AND ZHANG 0.50 oe 040 4 = 4a > 030 4 # FG 0.20 4 > x Kintind novan fen y x \e = o104 * 0.00 = 7 I 0 ‘50 ‘00 150 200 Plasticity Index, Ip Fig. 4. nly =0.1%, J,)—mg versus, relationships Jp) — mo versus Ip. Data at y= 10° was used for =107, ,)—me=0.338e-0081" the analysis since that level of shear strain ™=10™ Jp) ~m=0.335e a3 amplitude affects strongly m(y, J)—to func- tion. From Fig. 4, following formula was generated: my, Ip) Mo= where the constant 0.335 is m(y, J,)—mo value at y=10"* and J,=0 from Eq. (8). By combin- ing Eqs. (8) and (13), Eq. (14) is obtained: (0.000556 \"* yo 272[t—ramn {in (22288) | ean a ‘m(y, I;)—me function is identical to Eq. (8) when J,=0 (for sandy soils), decreases with increas- ing J», and approaches to zero at high J, (practically J, 270) regardless of y. K(y=10", J,) values were then calculated from Eq. (11) by using experimental data of G/ Gnu and G and m(y, J,)— mo function in Eq. (14) with known J, values. Fig. 5 shows those plots. A single function to fit data was not possible so that K (y, J,) was first assumed to be ex- pressed as: as) KO, L)=05 [2 +tank {in (eomenen yl) y where only modification from Eq. (7) is an inclusion of n(J,) function. Comparing Eq. (15) and data in Fig. 5, following functions were found to satisfy the data reasonably well: (0.0 for 1,=0 3.37x 10-1} for O70 (high plastic soils) Gandy soils)A solid curve in Fi (16). UNIFIED DYNAMIC SHEAR MODUL! 187 Sis the one based onEq. J, are plotted in Figs. 6(a), (b) Although the scatter of the data and (©). s large, the Experimental data for damping ratio of following observations can be made: (1) the non-sandy soils with three different ranges of curve for sands (/,=0) defines approximately 0.18, Ip) 0 K(Y Damping Ratio, D 1.00 0.80 4 0.60 0.40 4 0.20 4 0.00 1 r r 0 ‘50 100 180 200 Plasticity Index, Ip Fig. 5. K(=0.1%, J,) versus J, relationships 0.40 0.30 4 0.20 4 o.10 4 0.00 r T r 0.00 0:20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Fig, (8). Damping ratios versus G/ Guu for soils with Jp=1-15188 ISHIBASHI AND ZHANG 0.40 —P ecamne ea agen Kim and Novak CED) ‘Mnety and fade GOD a 0304 1.0 for sande s 3 ~ 0.20 4 a £ a § & 0.104 0.00 x 1 1 r 0.00) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 4.00 G/Gmax - 6b). Damping ratios versus G/ Ga for soils with f,= 16-70 0.40 @ yom exo clay Com e at 1770, Romo and date (1986) (etrer Dosey ana Vaceue 807) Sotucho ceat Geen) a 0304 . = 0 for sande s 5 = 0.20 4 2 & a E & o104 0.00 x r 1 1 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60) 0.80 1.00 G/Gmax Fig. 6(€ Damping ratios versus G/ Guy. fo soils with J,>71 the upper limit of all the data, (2) the max- imum damping ratios at G/Gpa=0.0 for plastic soils reduce to about a half of Dx (0.333) of sands, and (3) shapes of D versus G/ Gnu curve are similar to the one for sands. Based on those observations, Eq. (17) was pro- posed for the damping ratio for wide variety of soils:UNIFIED DYNAMIC SHEAR MODULI 189 3, = 200 Kien Damping Ratio, D at y =0.1% 0.40 Range of 5, (xNim") ao Ofs%<50 0.30 4 BO s0< 5 <200 ene © D0 200< 8, <400 BK © 4055 Ninna can ones saan es, Mexico clay eon et al. (1974), Romo and Jaime (1986) Gaiter Dobry and Vucetie (1987) A 400 180 200 Plasticity Index, Ip Fig. 7. Analytical and experimental D=Dawoa* (Ip) enor? 2 3331 +e“ 2) = Deana -1s( ri) where D=Daang at J,=0, the maximum damp- ing ratio for large J, values (practically [,>70) is 0.167, and the same exponential function for A(J,) was used as the one in the modifica- tion of m(y, J,)— mo in Eqs. (13) and (14). Fig. 7 compares analytical and experimental D values at y=10~°. The scatter of the data is large but those still stay within a reasonable range. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Equivalent shear moduli and damping ratios for sandy soils were collected first and simple formulas were proposed. Further damping ratios versus I, with various 3 modifications were made to include non-sandy soils. The final unified formulas are presented in Eqs. (11), (14), (15), (16), and (17). Only unknown in the equations is Guu, Which is the maximum shear modulus at very low strain levels. The value can be measured more ac- curately by laboratory resonant column ex- periments or readily converted from the measurement of shear wave velocities in the field. The in-situ moduli; Gmx ate also conve- niently related to undrained shear strength or standard penetration values (Hara et al., 1974) which are often measured in the practice. In addition, many previous researchers (Hardin and Drnevich, 1972; Sherif and Ishibashi, 1976; Iwasaki et al., 1978) have published Gras -values for sandy soils. Those Gax Values could be utilized in computations with a rather high degree of confidence when actual measure- ments are not available. Recent research by Seed et al. (1986) also concluded that their previous curves (Seed and Idriss, 1970) for sands are applicable to even gravelly soils so that these proposed equations190 ISHIBASHI AND ZHANG in this paper could be extended to include gravelly soils. The proposed formulas were also based on normally consolidated clays. However, from the fact that those properties are not much affected by overconsolidation ratio (Kokusho et al., 1982), the formulas could be extended to include moderately over- consolidated clays: REFERENCES: 1) Anderson, D. G., Phukunhaphan, A., Douglas, B. and Martin, G. R. (1983): ‘Cyclic behavior of six marine clays,” Proc. of the 1983 ASCE Convention, Session No. 52-Evaluation of Sealloor Soil Properties under Cyclic Loads, Houston, Texas. 2) Chung, M., Yokel, ¥. and Dmevich, V. P. (1984) “Evaluation of dynamic properties of sands by reso- nant column testings,”” ASTM, Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 60-69. 3) Dobry, R. and Vucetic, M, (1987): “Dynamic proper- ties and seismic response of soft clay deposits,” Proc. of Intemational Symposium on Geotechnical Engineering of Soft Soils, Mexico City, Vol. 2, pp. S1-87. 4) Drnevich, V. P. and Richart, F. E., Jr. (1970): “Dynamic prestraining of dry sand,” Journal of 'SMED, Proc. of ASCE, Vol. 96, No. SM2, pp. 453- 469. 5) Fang, H. Y., Chaney, R. C. and Pandit, N.S. (198 “Dynamic shear modulus of soft silt,” International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Ear- thquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Vol. Il, pp. 515-580, © Hara, A., Ohta, T., Niwa, M., Tanaka, S. and Ban- no, T. (1974): “Shear modulus and shear strength of cohesive soils,” Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 1-12. 1) Hara, A. and Kiyota, Y. (1976): “Dynamic behavior of sand in small strain levels,” Proc. of 11th Annual Meeting of JSSMFE, pp. 331-334 (in Japanese) 8) Hardin, B. O. and Dmnevich, V. P. (1972): “Shear ‘modulus and damping in soils: Design equations and curves,” Journal of SMFE, Proc. of ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SM7, pp. 667-692. 9) Hashiba, T. (1971): “Simple shear apparatus using an inclinometer,”” Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 113-119. 10) Ishibashi, 1. (1981): “Dynamic soil properties,"” Proc. of the Joint U.S-P.R.C. Microzonation Workshop, Harbin, China, pp. 16. 1-21 11) Ishibashi, 1. (1992): Discussion to “Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response” by M. Vucetic and R. Dobry, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, VOL. 118, No. 5, pp. 830-832. 12) Iwasaki, T. and Tatsuoka, F. (1977): “Effects of rain size and grading on dynamic shear moduli of ‘sand,"” Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 19-35. 13) Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F. and Takagi, Y. (1978): “Shear modulus of sands under torsional shear loading," Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 39-56. 14) Khouri, N. Q. (1984); “Dynamic properties of soils,” Master Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Syracuse University. 18) Kim, T. C. and Novak, M, (1981): “Dynamic proper- ties of some cohesive soils of Ontario," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 18, pp. 371-389. 16) Kokusho, T. (1980): “Cyclic triaxial test of dynamic soil properties for wide strain range,” Soils and Foun- dations, ISSMFE, Vol, 20, No. 2, pp. 45-60. 17) Kokusho, . (1981): “Dynamic properties of defor- mation and damping properties of coarse soil for wide range,” Japanese Central Electric Power Research Institute, Report No. 380002 (in Japanese). 18) Kokusho, T., Yoshida, Y. and Esashi, Y. (1982): ‘Dynamic properties of soft clay for wide strain range,” Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 1-18, 19) Kuribayashi, E., Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F. and Horiuchi, S. (1974): “Dynamic behavior of sand: Measurement in resonant column device,” Public Work Research Institute Report. 20) Kuribayashi, E., Iwasaki, T. and Tatsuoka, F. (1975) “Bifect of stress-strain condition on dynamic proper- ties of sand," Proc. of ISCE, No. 242, October, pp. 105-114 24) Leon, J. L., Jaime, A. and Rabago, A. (1974) “Dynamic properties of soils-preliminary study,” In- stitute of Engineering, UNAM, (in Spanish). 22) Leon, J. L. and Rufgo, A. (1973): “Dynamic tests on clays from valley of Mexico,” Sth Pan American Con- ference on Soil Mechanics, Vol. I, pp. 43-53, 23) Macky, T. A. and Saada, A. S, (1984): “Dynamics of anisotropic clays under large strains,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 4, April, pp. 487-508. 24) Olvoka, H., Itoh, K., Sugimura, Y. and Hirosawa, M. (1979): “Stress-strain behavior of dry sand and normally consolidated clay by interlaboratory cooperative cyclic shear tests,”" Proc. of 11th Joint ‘Meeting, U.S.—Japan Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects, UJNR, Tsukuba, Japan, September. 25) Romo, M. P. and Jaime, A. (1986): "Dynamic charac- teristics of some clays of the Mexico valley and seismic response of the ground,” Instituto de In- ‘genieria, Technical Report, Instituto de Ingenieria (in Spanish). 26) Seed, H. B, and Idriss, I. M. (1970): ‘Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis, Report No. EERC 70-10, University of Californi Berkeley. 27) Seed, H. B., Wang, R. ., Idriss, I. M. and Tokimat- su, K, (1986): “Moduli and dynamic factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils,”” Journal ofGeotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 11, pp. 1016-1032, 28) Shamoto, Y. (1984): “Applicability of nonlinear stress-strain model to undisturbed soils under cyclic * Shimizu Research Bulletin, No. 3, Tokyo, Japan, March. 29) Silver, M. L. and Seed, H. B. (1971): “Deformation characteristics of sands under cyclic loading,” J. of ‘SMFD, Proc. of ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SMB, pp. 1081- 1098. 30) Sherif, M. A. and Ishibashi, 1. (1976): “Dynamic ‘shear modulus for dry sands,"” J. of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. GT 11, pp. 1171-1184. 31) Sherif, M.A., Ishibashi, 1 and Gaddeh, A. H. (1977) “Damping ratio for dry sands,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. GT 7, pp. 743-756. 32) Tatsuoka, F., Iwasaki, T. and Takagi, Y. (197 eretic damping of sand under cyclic loading and its relation to shear modulus,” Soils and Founda- :D DYNAMIC SHEAR MODULI 191 tions, JSSMFE, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 25-40. 33) Tatsuoka, F., Iwasaki, T., Yoshida, S., Fukushima, . and Sudo, H. (1979): “Shear modulus and damp- ing by drained tests on clean sand specimens reconstituted by various method,” Soils and Founda- tions, ISSMFE, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 39-4 34) Tatsuoka, F., Iwasaki, T. and Sudo, H. (1979) “Stress conditions and stress histories affecting shear ‘modulus and damping of sand under eyelic loading,” Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 29-43. 35) Uchida, K., Sawada, T. and Hasegawa, T. (1980): “Dynamic properties of sand subjected to initial shear stress,” Proc. of International Symposium on Soils under Cyclic and Transient Loading, Swansen, United Kingdom, pp. 121-132. 36) Vucetic, M. and Dobry, R. (1991): “Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic "response," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 1, pp. 89-107,ISSN 0038-0806 FOUNDATIONS Volume 33, No.1 March 1993 Property of OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY Library Serials Corvallis, OR 97331-4503 Journal of the Japanese Society of Soil sur Mechanics and Foundation Engineering