Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 958e967

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.rockgeotech.org

Full Length Article

Dynamic properties and liquefaction behaviour of cohesive soil in

northeast India under staged cyclic loading
Shiv Shankar Kumar*, A. Murali Krishna, Arindam Dey
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Assam, 781039, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Estimation of strain-dependent dynamic soil properties, e.g. the shear modulus and damping ratio, along
Received 17 October 2017 with the liquefaction potential parameters, is extremely important for the assessment and analysis of
Received in revised form almost all geotechnical problems involving dynamic loading. This paper presents the dynamic properties
13 April 2018
and liquefaction behaviour of cohesive soil subjected to staged cyclic loading, which may be caused by
Accepted 16 April 2018
Available online 13 June 2018
main shocks of earthquakes preceded or followed by minor foreshocks or aftershocks, respectively. Cyclic
triaxial tests were conducted on the specimens prepared at different dry densities (1.5 g/cm3 and
1.75 g/cm3) and different water contents ranging from 8% to 25%. The results indicated that the shear
Keywords:
Cohesive soil
modulus reduction (G/Gmax) and damping ratio of the specimen remain unaffected due to the changes in
Dynamic soil properties the initial dry density and water content. Damping ratio is significantly affected by confining pressure,
Liquefaction potential whereas G/Gmax is affected marginally. It was seen that the liquefaction criterion of cohesive soils based
Cyclic triaxial tests on single-amplitude shear strain (3.75% or the strain at which excess pore water pressure ratio becomes
Staged cyclic loading equal to 1, whichever is lower) depends on the initial state of soils and applied stresses. The dynamic
model of the regional soil, obtained as an outcome of the cyclic triaxial tests, can be successfully used for
ground response analysis of the region.
Ó 2018 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction know the liquefaction susceptibility and the dynamic properties of

Several studies and earthquake evidences indicated the occur-
rence of liquefaction in loose saturated sand deposits at shallower
depths. Subjected to cyclic loading, the increase in pore water
pressure (PWP) causes the reduction in shear strength due to the
release of contacts between the particles. Apart from sandy soils,
which are more commonly prone to liquefaction, natural soil de-
posits in the field comprises different types of soil and soil-
mixtures such as silty-sand, silt, silty-clay, clay or any combinato-
rial soils. Among these soils, cohesive soil, owing to its small par-
ticle size and substantially low void ratio, is considered to be more
resistant to liquefaction in comparison to the cohesionless soils in
the event of an earthquake. However, severe damages of structures,
such as large deformation of ground and collapse of fills, were
observed due to failure of clay base layers during earthquakes
(Hyodo et al., 1993). Therefore, before designing the aseismic
structures on clay or silty-clay soil, geotechnical engineers should
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: shivshankar.mit@gmail.com, k.shiv@iitg.ernet.in (S.S. Kumar).
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chi-
nese Academy of Sciences.
such soils as well. Several studies reported the parameters influ-
encing the dynamic properties of cohesive soil (Hardin and
Drnevich, 1972a; Kokusho et al., 1982; Ishibashi and Zhang, 1993;
Dutta and Saride, 2015; Sas et al., 2015; Gu et al., 2016), i.e. the
effective confining pressure, shear strain, plasticity index, fre-
quency of loading, number of loading cycles, void ratio, degree of
saturation, overconsolidation ratio and particle size.
Researchers have also conducted cyclic tests (e.g. resonant col-
umn tests, cyclic triaxial tests and cyclic simple shear tests) to
anticipate the liquefaction behaviour of silt, sand, clay, silty-clay
and silty-sand soils (Kokusho et al., 1982; Vucetic and Dobry,
1991; Matsui et al., 1992; Ansal et al., 2001; Okur and Ansal,
2007; Dutta et al., 2017; Lei et al., 2017; Price et al., 2017; Thian
and Lee, 2017; Xiao et al., 2018). It was concluded that the behav-
iour of soils, i.e. the degradation in stiffness or cyclic strength, is
strongly influenced by the rise of PWP, governed by the soil plas-
ticity and loading frequency. The increase in PWP in saturated
cohesive soil is relatively less than that in the cohesionless soil,
because of the cohesion between the soil particles offering higher
resistance to particle separation during seismic shaking. Therefore,
the cumulative pore pressure may not be the only suitable reason to

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.04.004
1674-7755 Ó 2018 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 S.S. Kumar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 958e967 959

define the cyclic failure criterion for clay or cohesive soils (Li et al., the past earthquake data, tectonic setup and geology, Guwahati City
2011). Bray and Sancio (2006) reported that the plasticity index (PI) is found to be surrounded by six tectonic blocks, i.e. Shillong
is a better indicator of the liquefaction susceptibility of cohesive Plateau, Eastern Himalayas, Brahmaputra Valley, Surma Valley,
soil, while Boulanger and Idriss (2006) described the failure crite- Naga Hill and Arakan Yoma (Raghukanth et al., 2008). This region
rion in terms of cyclic softening. Since pure clayey soils are not has experienced several devastating earthquakes of different
susceptible to liquefaction, the amount of clay present in the soil is moment magnitudes ranging from M5 to M8.7 (Nath et al., 2008).
one of the good indicators towards liquefaction susceptibility of Raghukanth (2008) reported that during 1950 Assam earthquake,
such soil (Sancio et al., 2003; Tan et al., 2013). The variations in clay the region of Assam experienced extensive liquefaction, over an
content can be best represented by PI. Several other liquefaction approximate area of 126 acres (1 acre ¼ 4046.9 m2). In this regard,
criteria were also proposed by the researchers, one of which is the owing to the scanty literature, it is imperative to investigate and
Chinese criterion (Wang, 1979). According to this criterion, soil is evaluate the dynamic properties of northeastern soil. It is a com-
susceptible to liquefaction if clay soil contains 15%e20% particles mon practise, on behalf of the geotechnical engineers, to perform
(by weight) smaller than 0.005 mm, LL ¼ 21%e35%, PI ¼ 4%e14% GRA using the existing dynamic models for sand (proposed by Seed
and wc/LL > 0.9. In a similar fashion, Andrews and Martin (2000) and Idriss, 1970), clay (proposed by Vucetic and Dobry, 1991), and
modified the upper limit of LL to be 32% and size of fine contents combinatorial soil (proposed by Ishibashi and Zhang, 1993). In the
to be smaller than 0.002 mm (i.e. less than 10% by weight) while absence of proper region-specific dynamic model, the use of the
redefining the same criterion. Studies on the cohesive soil reported standard soil models might lead to the inaccurate estimation of the
a failure criterion based on the number of loading cycles at which ground response parameters involved in aseismic design (Kumar
an arbitrarily predetermined double amplitude (DA) failure-axial- et al., 2018). Estimation of dynamic properties of sandy soils is
strain (e.g. 2.5%, 3%, 5%, 10%, 15% or 20%) is reached (Prakash and well reported for deposits in northeast India (Kumar et al., 2017).
Sandoval, 1992; Yasuhara et al., 1992; Hyodo et al., 1994; Perlea, The study presents the dynamic properties and liquefaction eval-
2000; Li et al., 2011). Thus it is aptly clear that the possibility of uation of the typically available cohesive soil nearby Guwahati City
liquefaction depends on the initial state of cohesive soils. Very (Assam region), which can be useful for the proper assessment of
recently seismic requalification studies of important structures GRA in this region.
located in high seismic zone have been initiated (Dammala et al.,
2017a), where understanding of underlying soil behaviour is
3. Test material and liquefaction susceptibility criterion
critical.
Cyclic triaxial test apparatus is the most common type of
3.1. Description of test material
apparatus used for such experiments to understand the dynamic
characteristics of cohesionless and cohesive soils. Hence, in this
Cohesive soil available near Guwahati region was used for this
respect, the methodologies adopted in the present research do
study. The specific gravity (Gs) of the soil was found to be 2.65
conform to the earlier researches. The highlight and importance of
(ASTM D854-14, 2014). As presented in Fig. 1, the particle size
the present research lie in the application of cyclic triaxial test to
distribution of the soil obtained from wet sieve (ASTM D6913/
identifying the dynamic properties and liquefaction behaviour of
D6913M-17, 2017) and hydrometer analysis (ASTM D7928-17,
the regional red cohesive soil found in abundance in and around
2017) exhibited a composition of 21.23% clay (<0.002 mm),
Guwahati region. Only limited literature is available about the dy-
48.5% silt (0.002e0.075 mm), and 30.27% fine sand (0.075e
namic characterisation of the soils in the said region (Guwahati and
4.75 mm). The values of liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL) and PI
northeast region of India); moreover, all the literature deals with
were determined as 41.5%, 22.6% and 18.9%, respectively (ASTM
the dynamic response of cohesionless soils. This article provides the
D4318-17e1, 2017). The MDD and OMC of the soil were found to
documentation of the dynamic response of the cohesive soil
be 1.75 g/cm3 and 19.3%, respectively (ASTM D698-12e2, 2012). As
available in the region. The characterisation of the regional cohe-
per unified soil classification system (USCS) (ASTM D2487-11,
sive soil holds importance in its application to ground response
2011), the soil is classified as low plastic cohesive soil. As per the
analysis (GRA). In the absence of the dynamic response of the
regional soils, it is a common practise to use the standard dynamic
models (Vucetic and Dobry, 1991; Darendeli, 2001; Roblee and
Chiou, 2004) for GRA studies. Similar approach has been prac-
tised for cohesionless soils (Seed and Idriss, 1970; Darendeli, 2001).
However, Kumar et al. (2017) showed that the regional cohesionless
soils can exhibit substantially different dynamic behaviours as
compared to the standard models for similar soils. The same un-
derstanding holds good for cohesive soils as well. For conducting
the tests, soil specimens were prepared at maximum dry density
(MDD) of 1.75 g/cm3, optimum moisture content (OMC) of 19.3%
and field density of 1.5 g/cm3 with varying water contents (8%, 15%
and 25%). Since water content in the field varies significantly during
seasonal variation, varying percentage of water contents was cho-
sen to interpret the soil behaviour in the field during such seasonal
conditions. The prepared specimens were subjected to different
amplitudes of stresses (based on cyclic stress ratio (CSR)) having a
loading frequency of 1 Hz.

2. Study region
Fig. 1. Particle size distribution of prevalent soils of northeastern region of India (1 e
The entire northeastern region of India is located at the most Present study; 2 e Govinda Raju (2005); 3 e Dammala et al. (2017b); 4 e Kumar et al.
seismically active region in the world (IS 1893-1, 2002). Based on (2017); 5 e Paul and Dey (2007)).
960 S.S. Kumar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 958e967

soil map, the northeastern region of India primarily consists of six

predominant types of soils, i.e. mountain soils, red loamy soils,
terai soils, alluvial soils, mixed red and black soils, and laterite
soils. Out of these soil types, the red loamy soil and the alluvial soil
are extensively found in the states of Assam and Nagaland. The
alluvial soils are predominant in the river basins of the north-
eastern region, and are mostly coarse or fine sandy soils, with
moderate fines content (silt and clay). The next predominant soil is
the red soil (lateritic or loamy), formed as a result of weathering of
metamorphic rocks, or due to alternating cycles of wetting and
drying caused by seasonal rainfalls, respectively. These soils are
predominantly fine soils, with high percentage of clays along with
appreciable percentage of silts. These types of red cohesive soils
are prevalent in and around Guwahati region. Along with the
particle size distribution of the cohesive soil used in the present
study, Fig. 1 shows a comparison of the particle size distributions
of other soils available in the northeastern region of India (Govinda
Raju, 2005; Paul and Dey, 2007; Dammala et al., 2017b; Kumar
et al., 2017). The physical properties of various soils are provided Fig. 2. Atterberg limits chart showing representative values of soils which exhibit clay-
like, sand-like, or intermediate behaviour (after Boulanger and Idriss, 2006) (CL or OL
in Table 1. Apart from a few studies illustrating the dynamic
e Low plastic clay or low plastic organic clay, CH or OH e High plastic clay or high
characteristics of only the sandy or silty-sand soils available in the plastic organic clay, MH or OH e High plastic silt or high plastic organic silt, ML or OL e
northeastern region of India, there is no study conducted to assess Low plastic silt or low plastic organic silt).
the dynamic characteristics of red cohesive soil, the second most
prevalent soil in the region. Fine content is an important aspect
which is influential in the liquefaction behaviour of cohesive soils that exhibit clay-like behaviour and have PI  7% are susceptible to
(Bahadori et al., 2008; Sadrekarimi, 2013). In the present study, the liquefaction. It can be observed that the soil considered in the
fine content of the red cohesive soil was obtained approximately to present study, having PI ¼ 18.9% (marked by star in Fig. 2), is located
be 50%e60%. It is worth mentioning that the present study em- near the boundary of Zones B and C. Hence, this soil might exhibit
phasises on investigating dynamic response of the specimen, along an intermediate or a clay-like behaviour, and may or may not be
with the estimation of dynamic and liquefaction properties. susceptible to liquefaction.
However, the influence of fine content and its variation on the
liquefaction behaviour of the stated specimen is beyond the scope
4. Test apparatus and experimental program
of the present article.
Cyclic triaxial apparatus was used for the experimental in-
3.2. Liquefaction susceptibility criterion vestigations. The apparatus consists of a loading frame of 100 kN,
fitted with a pneumatic dynamic actuator having a displacement
Fig. 2 presents the Atterberg limits chart, proposed by Boulanger range and operational frequency range of 0e30 mm and 0.01e
and Idriss (2006), to define the liquefaction susceptible criterion for 10 Hz, respectively. The details of instrumentations available with
soils. It shows that any particular soil can exhibit clay-like, sand- the apparatus are described in Kumar et al. (2017). All the tests
like, or intermediate behaviour, depending on the representative PI were conducted on the remoulded cylindrical soil specimens of
and LL values of the specimens. In the present study, the collected 70 mm in diameter and 140 mm in height (ASTM D3999/D3999M-
soil possesses LL ¼ 41.5%, and nearly 21.23% particles (by weight) 11e1, 2011). Fig. 3a shows the mould to prepare the cohesive soil
are smaller than 0.002 mm, which places the specimen just beyond specimens. To prepare the soil specimen, dry soil of a specified
the boundary of liquefaction susceptible soils (as per the Chinese weight was firstly mixed with the required amount of water. Once
criterion and the modified criterion by Andrews and Martin the water was uniformly mixed with the soil, the entire quantity of
(2000)). Seed et al. (2003) reported that the soils with PI < 12%, water-mixed soil was transferred into the mould from one end,
LL < 37% and wc/LL > 0.8 are considered as potentially liquefiable, while the other end was maintained fixed with the collar (Fig. 3b).
represented by Zone A in Fig. 2, whereas soils having PI ¼ 12%e20%, Thereafter, compaction was done from both ends by giving simul-
LL ¼ 37%e47% and wc/LL > 0.85 are classified as soils moderately taneous equal rotation to the collars, maintaining uniformity of the
susceptible to liquefaction (represented by Zone B in Fig. 2). The specimen, till the specimen length of 140 mm was obtained. Fig. 3c
soils lying beyond Zone B (defined as Zone C) are not susceptible to presents the specimen prepared in the mould, which was taken out
liquefaction. Bray and Sancio (2006) also reported that the soils by the help of extruder.
with PI > 18% are not susceptible to liquefaction, whereas The soil specimen, wrapped within the rubber membrane, was
Boulanger and Idriss (2006) reported that the fine-grained soils then kept on the base pedestal of triaxial apparatus. A vacuum

Table 1
Physical properties of tested cohesive soil and other soils present in Guwahati region.

Soil type Source Specific gravity, Liquid limit Plastic limit Plasticity index Uniformity Coefficient of Dry density
Gs (%) (%) (%) coefficient, Cu curvature, Cc (g/cm3)

Cohesive soil Present study 2.65 41.5 22.6 18.9 1.75

Sand (Beltaghat) Govinda Raju (2005) 2.66 5.56 0.89 1.393e1.739
Sand (Bongaigaon) Dammala et al. (2017b) 2.7 2.55 1.23 1.393e1.684
Sand (Guwahati) Kumar et al. (2017) 2.7 1.47 1.09 1.385e1.684
Sand (Silchar) Paul and Dey (2007) 2.648 1.84 1.02 1.453e1.687
 S.S. Kumar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 958e967 961

Fig. 3. (a) Mould for the preparation of cohesive soil specimen; (b) Mould ready to be filled with water-mixed soil from one end, while the other end is fixed with the collar; and (c)
Prepared specimen.

pressure of 15e20 kPa was applied before removing the mould to
establish proper contact between rubber membrane and
circumferential boundary of the soil specimen. Subsequently, the
triaxial cell was mounted on the base plate and then filled with
de-aired water, followed by simultaneous application of cell
pressure (CP) of 15e20 kPa and release of vacuum pressure
(Ishihara, 1993). This application of CP was done to prevent the
flow of CO2 through the interface of rubber membrane and soil
boundary and to achieve quick saturation. The specimen prepa-
ration was followed by subsequent saturation and consolidation
stages. In order to expedite the saturation process, the specimen
was flushed with CO2 for 45 min to 1 h, at a pressure lower than
the initial CP, i.e. 15e20 kPa (as suggested by Ishihara (1993)).
Subsequently, de-aired water was passed through the CO2 flushed
specimen. The water pressure head was maintained less than the
existing CP of 15e20 kPa. To attain the saturation, the CP and back
c c
c c
pressure (BP) were then gradually increased in stages by main-
taining an almost constant differential pressure of 10 kPa. After
each increment of CP, the Skempton’s pore pressure parameter (B)
was estimated to check the saturation status. The specimen was
considered to be completely saturated when the B-value was
obtained to be greater than 0.96. The time taken in saturation for
one specimen, i.e. from the application of CO2 to achieving the B-
value greater than 0.96, was 4e5 d. After attaining the saturation,
the specimen was isotropically consolidated to a targeted effec-
tive confining stress (s0 c ) of (50  2) kPa, (100  2) kPa or
(200  2) kPa, by increasing the CP, while maintaining a constant
BP. The time taken for the consolidation process depends upon
the dry density and water content at which soil specimen was
prepared (Fig. 4). The consolidated specimens were then sub-
jected to cyclic loading. Cyclic tests performed on the cohesive
soil specimens, prepared at different dry densities and water
contents, with different investigating parameters are shown in
Table 2. The consolidated specimens were then subjected to
stress-controlled staged cyclic loading with sinusoidal waveform
of frequency (f) of 1 Hz (Table 2).
Stress-controlled cyclic triaxial tests were conducted to eval-
uate the shear modulus and damping ratio, as well as the lique-
faction potential, of cohesive soil by applying staged cyclic

Table 2
Dry density and water content for the prepared specimens, and the loading cyclic
stress ratio (CSR).

Specimen gd (g/cm3) wc (%) s0 c (kPa) CSR N

S1 1.75 19.3 100  2 0.1 2000


c

S2 1.75 19.3 100 2 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 1060, 570, 37

S3 1.75 19.3 100  2 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 2000, 100, 24
S4 1.5 8 100  2 0.1, 0.2 500, 45
S5 1.5 8 100  2 0.2 38
S6 1.5 15 100  2 0.2 32
S7 1.5 25 100  2 0.2, 0.3 123, 20
S8 1.5 8 200  2 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 500, 100, 50
S9 1.5 8 50  2 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 500, 100, 50
Fig. 4. Excess pore water pressure (PWP) reduction with elapsed time during
consolidation. Note: Specimen S1 is not fully saturated and N represents the number of cycles.
962 S.S. Kumar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 958e967
Fig. 5. Typical stress-controlled staged cyclic loading used in the present study.
loading. Since strain-controlled tests require a new test specimen
each time for a different magnitude of applied shear strain
amplitude, several tests with new specimen have to be conducted
for the evaluation of strain-dependent dynamic properties of
soils. Alternatively, stress-controlled loading is a good choice,
where a single test specimen provides the dynamic properties of
soil at various strain levels. In this study, staged cyclic loading was
applied on the specimens in stress-controlled manner as pre-
sented in Fig. 5. Yoshida (2015) has also reported the importance
of staged loading in comparison to the single stage test (i.e. strain-
controlled test). This type of loading (staged cyclic loading) rep-
resents a more realistic approach to evaluate the dynamic
Fig. 6. Typical results from stress-controlled cyclic loading of cohesive soil specimen S4 prepared at MDD ¼ 1.5 g/cm3, wc ¼ 8% and tested at s0 c ¼ 100 kPa, f ¼ 1 Hz and CSR ¼ 0.1
and 0.2: (a) Variation of excess pore pressure with loading cycles; (b) Variation of axial strain with loading cycles; (c) Variation of deviatoric stress with axial strain; and (d) Cyclic
effective stress path.
response and properties of soil since the same soil is expected to
experience different stress levels during a single earthquake event
composed of main shock, foreshocks and aftershocks with
different intensities and magnitudes.
5. Results and discussions
Typical results obtained from the stress-controlled cyclic
triaxial tests on cohesive soil specimen, prepared at MDD of
1.5 g/cm3, wc ¼ 8%, and tested at CSR of 0.1e0.3, s0 c ¼ 100 kPa,
f ¼ 1 Hz, are shown in Fig. 6. Fig. 6a illustrates the development
of excess PWP ratio (ru ¼ Du/Dsc) due to the applied loading,
which can exhibit the cause of initiation of liquefaction of soil
based on the criterion ru ¼ 1. Fig. 6b shows the variation of axial
strain with number of cycles (N), exhibiting strain accumulation
over the loading period. It can also be observed that with the
increase in ru above 500 loading cycles, the axial strain increased
drastically. Fig. 6c shows the stress-strain response obtained
during stress-controlled cyclic loading, which has been subse-
quently used to evaluate the dynamic properties such as the
shear modulus (G) and the damping ratio (D) of cohesive soil.
Fig. 6d presents the variations in effective stress path obtained
for the cohesive soil.
5.1. Evaluation of dynamic soil properties
Stress-controlled tests were conducted at different cyclic
shear stress (s ¼ sd/2) amplitudes ranging from 10 kPa to 40 kPa,
represented by CSR ¼ 0.1e0.4, as listed in Table 2. The tests were
conducted on the specimens prepared at different ranges of dry
density and water content at s0 c ¼ (100  2) kPa, and was sub-
jected to loading frequency of 1 Hz. A typical plot of the varia-
tions in stress-strain relation during different cyclic shear stress
 S.S. Kumar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 958e967
Fig. 7. Hysteresis loops at different loading CSR values and numbers of cycles.
amplitudes is presented in Fig. 7a. Fig. 7bee presents the varia-
tions in shear stress (s) and shear strain (g), also called hysteresis
loop, at different numbers of loading cycle (N), i.e. N ¼ 1e15,
for CSR ¼ 0.2. It was seen that the hysteresis loops obtained at
different N values in between 1 and 10 are almost symmetrical,
whereas at N ¼ 15, and beyond, the loops are highly asymmet-
rical. Therefore, to evaluate the shear modulus (G) and damping
ratio (D) of cohesive soil, the methodology proposed by Kumar
et al. (2017) has been adopted for all hysteresis loops.
Fig. 8 depicts that the variations in shear modulus (G), shear
modulus reduction (G/Gmax) and damping ratio (D) obtained
from stress-controlled loading. Fig. 8a represents the variations
in G with shear strains for different soil specimens (S1eS9).
Based on the results obtained for specimens S1eS7, it was seen
that G values obtained from all tests follow very narrow range of
scatter and are independent of initial dry densities, water con-
tents and degrees of saturation. It can also be seen that G is
affected by the variation of confining pressure (test series S8,
S1eS7 and S9). Fig. 8b illustrates the variations in normalised
963
shear modulus (G/Gmax) with shear strains for specimens S1eS9.
It can be seen that the variation of G/Gmax with s0 c lies in a very
narrow range of scatter, and hence can be considered to be un-
affected by confining pressure. In most of the geotechnical en-
gineering applications concerning dynamic loading, G/Gmax curve
is one of the essentially required input parameters. In order to
estimate the same, Gmax of cohesive soil, subjected to different
values of s0 c , was evaluated using the empirical correlation pro-
posed by Hardin and Drnevich (1972b):
ð2:973  eÞ2
Gmax ¼ 102132:648 ðOCRÞK ðs0 c Þ0:5 (1)
1þe
where e is the void ratio, OCR is the overconsolidation ratio (for
present study, OCR ¼ 1), s0 c and Gmax are in Pa.
Fig. 8c presents the variations in damping ratio (D) of test
specimens S1eS9, suggesting that the damping ratio is indepen-
dent of the variations in dry densities, water contents and degrees
of saturation. However, the results reveal that the scatter in the
964 S.S. Kumar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 958e967

Fig. 9. (a) Average plot of G/Gmax and damping ratio curves in comparison with Vucetic
and Dobry (1991) model; and (b) Variation of G/Gmax and damping ratio curves in
combination with Dutta and Saride (2015).

than 0.01% were considered from Vucetic and Dobry (1991), and
that from Dutta and Saride (2015), as shown in Fig. 9a and b,
respectively. Fig. 9a represents the estimated G/Gmax and D curves
of cohesive soil for PI ¼ 18.9% in comparison to the standard curves
proposed by Vucetic and Dobry (1991) for PI ranging between 0 and
50%. The significant difference in G/Gmax and D curves, obtained
from the present experiment and standard model, is attributed to
different particle sizes of soils and other associated index proper-
ties. It is also seen that the damping curve proposed by Vucetic and
Dobry (1991) shows almost increasing and asymptotic response up
to shear strain g ¼ 10%, whereas the same obtained from the

Fig. 8. Variations of (a) shear modulus, (b) G/Gmax, and (c) damping ratio with shear
strain.

obtained estimates of D with the variation in confining pressure

(test specimens S1eS7, S8 and S9) is more than that obtained for G.
Fig. 8c also indicates that D increases with the increase in shear
strain, followed by decreasing trend beyond 1% shear strain for all
three cases of s0 c .
To provide the dynamic properties of soil for wide range of shear
strains (from low to high strain levels), the strain-dependent shear
modulus reduction and damping ratio values for shear strain less Fig. 10. Typical plots of the variations in G, D and ru during staged loading.
 S.S. Kumar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 958e967 965

present study shows a decreasing response beyond g ¼ 1.5%. the succeeding loading stage (CSR ¼ 0.3). It is also seen that the
Similar behaviour of damping ratio for sandy soil was reported by initial ru is higher in S3 than S2, since S3 was initially subjected to
Kumar et al. (2017). Therefore, the estimation of dynamic soil high amplitude of stress (CSR ¼ 0.2). Both the specimens S2 and S3,
properties of any regional soils is very important to precisely devise prepared at MDD and OMC, reflects the maximum ru  0.6 at 2000
the approach to design the aseismic structures of the specific cycles. A sudden drop in ru was observed just before the application
region. of CSR ¼ 0.3 and 0.4 for specimens S2 and S3, respectively. The
Fig. 9b presents the combined soil curves (shear modulus specimens S4 and S5 were prepared at a dry density of 1.5 g/cm3
degradation and damping ratio curves) obtained from the present and water content of 8%. The specimen S4 shows ru z 1, when
study with that proposed by Dutta and Saride (2015) for a typical subjected to CSR ¼ 0.1 and followed by CSR ¼ 0.2, whereas the
Indian cohesive soil subjected to shear strain lower than 0.01%. Dutta
and Saride (2015) have conducted resonant column tests on the
compacted cohesive soil (index properties: Gs ¼ 2.8, MDD ¼ 1.68 g/
cm3, OMC ¼ 22%, LL ¼ 58%, PL ¼ 20%, PI ¼ 38%) to determine the
dynamic soil properties for 0.0001%<g<0.1%. Based on Fig. 9a and b,
it can be stated that the dynamic properties of cohesive soil for shear
strain less than 0.01% as obtained from standard model by Vucetic
and Dobry (1991) are significantly different from that obtained by
Dutta and Saride (2015) for Indian regional soil. Hence, in the
absence of low-strain dynamic properties of typical Indian cohesive
soils having nearly similar aforementioned index properties, Dutta
and Saride (2015)’s soil model can be cautiously used. However,
for proper estimation of response, each of the subsurface stratifica-
tion should be dynamically characterised.
A typical plot of the response of cohesive soil, in terms of vari-
ations in G, D and ru with shear strain, during staged cyclic loading,
is presented in Fig. 10. It shows that the shear modulus of cohesive
soil decreases, whereas damping ratio increases with the increase
in shear strain. The increase in ru with shear strains is also observed,
however, a reduction in ru is noticed at the time gap between two
staged cyclic loadings. This is attributed to the time-lag (nearly 5 s)
between the subsequent loading stages, during which there re-
mains high possibility of the redistribution of ru within the soil
specimen. This redistribution may cause slight densification of the
soil specimen during the time gap between the loading stages.
Similar observations were also reported by Yoshida (2015). Yasuda
et al. (1994) conducted strain-controlled tests (called fresh-cyclic
tests) and staged cyclic tests, and reported that the damping ratio
was not affected by the testing conditions, whereas shear modulus
was found to be slightly affected beyond g ¼ 0.01% due to gener-
ation and accumulation of ru. The excess PWP ratio ru was observed
to slightly decrease before commencing the subsequent loadings of
higher stress levels; however, g and D exhibited an increasing
response. The higher value of CSR implies higher deviatoric stress
on the specimens, thus resulting in higher shear strain. Therefore,
in the case of cohesive soils, rather than the pore pressure criterion,
it suggests that the shear strain criteria for liquefaction evaluation
would be more appropriate.

5.2. Liquefaction potential of cohesive soil

Fig. 11 presents the variations in ru and g, measured during

undrained cyclic loading, to evaluate the liquefaction potential of
cohesive soil specimens prepared at different dry densities and
water contents (Specimens S1eS9 as mentioned in Table 2). From
Fig. 11a, it is seen that the specimen S1 tested at total confining
stress (s0 c ) of (100  2) kPa (without any saturation) shows incre-
mental ru up to 2000 cycles. Since the specimen S1 was prepared at
MDD and OMC, in which almost 95% saturation level was already
attained, application of loading cycles in undrained conditions is
responsible for the increase in PWP. The specimens S2 and S3 were
tested at saturated condition for CSR ranges of 0.1e0.3 and 0.2e0.4,
respectively. The specimen S2 shows incremental response of PWP
up to CSR ¼ 0.2, followed by sudden drop just before the application
of CSR ¼ 0.3. As explained earlier, this PWP drop is due to the time-
lag between the end of the preceding loading stage (CSR ¼ 0.2) and Fig. 11. Variations in (a) ru and (b) g with N; and (c) Variations in ru with g.
966 S.S. Kumar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 958e967

specimen S5 shows the same with CSR ¼ 0.2 at the 13th cycle. The (4) The strain-dependent dynamic properties of cohesive soils in
specimen S6, prepared at dry density of 1.5 g/cm3 and water con- northeastern India, obtained from staged-loading tests, can
tent of 15%, shows ru z 1 at the 15th cycle, when subjected to be suitably used to assess the ground response analysis of the
CSR ¼ 0.2. It has also been seen that the specimen S7, prepared at region, in combination with similar properties reported for
dry density of 15 g/cm3 and water content of 25%, does not show sandy deposits (Kumar et al., 2017).
ru z 1, when subjected to CSR ¼ 0.2 and followed by CSR ¼ 0.3. The (5) The shear strain based liquefaction criterion for cohesive
variations in ru obtained for the specimens S5, S6 and S7 show that soils is proposed. Cohesive soil will be considered to be liq-
the resistance of liquefaction increases with the increase in initial uefied at (a) SA shear strain of 3.75% (even if ru < 1), or (b) the
water content, when these specimens are subjected to CSR ¼ 0.2. shear strain at which ru ¼ 1, whichever is lower.
Fig. 11b presents the accumulation of shear strain during un- (6) The ground response assessment of any region should be
drained cyclic loading in the specimens S1eS8. It has been seen that conducted based on the dynamic properties of the soils from
the specimens S1eS3, prepared at MDD and OMC, reflect the the specific region. Direct adoption of the standard curves
maximum shear strains (gmax) at the end of tests as 0.02%, 6% and will lead to improper results, primarily due to the differences
4.5%, respectively. As reliable pore pressure measurements are in the composition and stress state of the soil used to develop
difficult in cyclic testing due to relatively low permeability, in this the standard curves.
circumstance, the criterion of 3.75% single-amplitude (SA) shear
strain is convenient to define liquefaction of cohesive soils. The
specimens S2 and S3 are found to satisfy the above criterion to Conflict of interest
exhibit liquefaction, while specimen S1 did not show any signs of
liquefaction. Similar SA shear strain criterion for the evaluation of The authors wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of
liquefaction potential in cohesive soil was reported by Ishihara interest associated with this publication and there has been no
(1996) and Perlea (2000). The specimens S4 and S5, prepared at significant financial support for this work that could have influ-
dry density of 1.5 g/cm3 and water content of 8%, show liquefaction enced its outcome.
(ru ¼ 1) at 2.5% SA shear strain is attributed to the relatively higher
permeability compared to the specimen prepared at MDD and
List of abbreviations and symbols
OMC. Similar observations were found for the specimens S6 and S7,
prepared at same dry density (1.5 g/cm3) and different water con-
B Skempton’s pore pressure parameter
tents of 15% and 25%, respectively. The specimen S7 was found to
BP Back pressure
liquefy as it reached 3.75% SA shear strain, while the specimen S6
CP Cell pressure
exhibited liquefaction due to the excess pore pressure ratio
CSR Cyclic stress ratio
attaining the value of 1 at a shear strain of 2.5%. Hence, cohesive
D Damping ratio
soils can be said to attain the state of liquefaction at a shear strain of
Dr Relative density
3.75% (even if ru < 1), or the shear strain at which ru ¼ 1, whichever
e Void ratio
is lower. Cohesive soils may not lose complete strength during
F Frequency of sinusoidal waveform
cyclic loading, even if soils are saturated and ru reaches 1, due to the
G Shear modulus
cohesive bond presented amongst the soil particles. Therefore, the
Gmax Maximum shear modulus
strain-based criterion to quantify the liquefaction in cohesive soil
G/Gmax Normalized shear modulus
can be a best option when ru is not prominent. Fig. 11c presents the
GRA Ground response analysis
variations in ru with shear strain for the specimens S1eS8. It can be
Gs Specific gravity
clearly stated that the cyclic threshold shear strain for cohesive soil
LL Liquid limit
is approximately 0.02%, beyond which the initiation of excess PWP
MDD Maximum dry density
due to cyclic loading is observed.
N Number of cycles
OCR Overconsolidation ratio
6. Conclusions
OMC Optimum moisture content
PI Plasticity index
Based on the results obtained from the stress-controlled staged
PWP Pore water pressure
cyclic loading on cohesive soils, the following conclusions are drawn:
ru Excess PWP ratio (Du/Dsc)
Du Change in PWP
(1) The shear modulus degradation (G/Gmax) and damping ratio
Dsc Change in confining stress
curves are independent of the initial dry density and water
sd Deviatoric stress
content of the specimens. The effect of confining pressure on
SA Single amplitude
G/Gmax is insignificant, while the effects on damping ratio
wc Water content
curves are prominent.
g Shear strain
(2) The standard dynamic curves proposed by Vucetic and Dobry
gmax Maximum shear strains
(1991) for cohesive soils are found unsuitable to represent
gd Dry density of soil
the dynamic characteristics of the typical cohesive soil found
s0 c Effective confining stress
in the northeastern India. The damping ratio curves beyond a
shear strain of 1% are significantly different.
(3) The low-strain dynamic characteristics of Indian cohesive References
soil (proposed by Dutta and Saride, 2015) are compatible
ASTM D698-12e2. Standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics
with the trend of high-strain dynamic characteristics re- of soil using standard effort (12400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)). West Con-
ported in the present study. Hence, in the absence of low- shohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International; 2012.
strain characteristic data for typical Indian cohesive soils, ASTM D4318-17e1. Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plas-
ticity index of soils. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International; 2017.
the dynamic model from Dutta and Saride (2015) can be Andrews DC, Martin GR. Criteria for liquefaction of silty soils. In: Proceedings of the
effectively used. 12th world conference on earthquake engineering; 2000.
 S.S. Kumar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 958e967
Ansal AM, Iyisan R, Yildirim H. The cyclic behaviour of soils and effects of
geotechnical factors in microzonation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engi-
neering 2001;21(5):445e52.
ASTM D2487-11. Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering pur-
poses (Unified Soil Classification System). West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM
International; 2011.
ASTM D6913/D6913M-17. Standard test methods for particle-size distribution
(gradation) of soils using sieve analysis. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM
International; 2017.
ASTM D7928-17. Standard test method for particle-size distribution (gradation) of
fine-grained soils using the sedimentation (hydrometer) analysis. West Con-
shohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International; 2017.
ASTM D854-14. Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids by water
pycnometer. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International; 2014.
ASTM D3999/D3999M-11e1. Standard test methods for the determination of the
modulus and damping properties of soils using the cyclic triaxial apparatus.
West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International; 2011.
Bahadori H, Ghalandarzadeh A, Towhata I. Effect of non-plastic silt on the aniso-
tropic behavior of sand. Soils and Foundations 2008;48(4):531e45.
Boulanger RW, Idriss IM. Liquefaction susceptibility criteria for silts and clays. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 2006;132(11):1413e26.
Bray JD, Sancio RB. Assessment of the liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained
soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
2006;132(9):1165e77.
Dammala PK, Bhattacharya S, Krishna AM, Kumar SS, Dasgupta K. Scenario based
seismic re-qualification of caisson supported major bridgeseA case study of
Saraighat Bridge. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2017a;100:270e5.
Dammala PK, Murali Krishna A, Bhattacharyya S, Nikitas G, Rouholamin M. Dynamic
soil properties for seismic ground response in Northeastern India. Soil Dy-
namics and Earthquake Engineering 2017b;100:357e70.
Darendeli MB. Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and
material damping curves. PhD Thesis. Austin, USA: Department of Civil,
Architectural and environmental engineering, University of Texas; 2001.
Dutta TT, Saride S. Dynamic properties of compacted cohesive soil based on resonant
column studies. In: International conference on geo-engineering and climate
change technologies for sustainable environmental management; 2015. p. 1e6.
Dutta TT, Saride S, Jallu M. Effect of saturation on dynamic properties of compacted clay
in a resonant column test. Geomechanics and Geoengineering 2017;12(3):181e90.
Govinda Raju L. Liquefaction and dynamic properties of sandy soils. PhD Thesis.
Bangalore, India: Indian Institute of Science; 2005.
Gu C, Gu Z, Cai Y, Wang J, Ling D. Dynamic modulus characteristics of saturated clays
under variable confining pressure. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 2016;54(5):
729e35.
Hardin BO, Drnevich VP. Shear modulus and damping in soils: measurement and
parameter effects. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division
1972a;98(6):603e24.
Hardin BO, Drnevich VP. Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and
curves. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division 1972b;98:667e92.
Hyodo M, Sugiyama M, Yasufuku N, Murata H, Kawata Y. Cyclic shear behaviour of
clay subjected to initial shear stress. Technical Report. Yamaguchi University;
1993. p. 87e102.
Hyodo M, Yamamoto Y, Sugiyama M. Undrained cyclic shear behaviour of normally
consolidated clay subjected to initial static shear stress. Soils and Foundations
1994;34(4):1e11.
IS 1893-1. Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures-general provisions
and buildings. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standard; 2002.
Ishibashi I, Zhang XJ. Unified dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios of sand and
clay. Soils and Foundations 1993;33(1):182e91.
Ishihara K. Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes. Géotechnique
1993;43(3):351e415.
Ishihara K. Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechnics. Clarendon Press; 1996.
Kokusho T, Yoshida Y, Esashi Y. Dynamic properties of soft clay for wide strain range.
Soils and Foundations 1982;22(4):1e18.
Kumar SS, Krishna AM, Dey A. Evaluation of dynamic properties of sandy soil at
high cyclic strains. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2017;99:157e67.
Kumar SS, Dey A, Krishna AM. Importance of site-specific dynamic soil properties
for seismic ground response studies: ground response analysis. International
Journal of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering 2018;9(1):78e98.
Lei H, Liu J, Liu M, Zhang Z, Jiang M. Effects of frequency and cyclic stress ratio on
creep behavior of clay under cyclic loading. Marine Georesources and Geo-
technology 2017;35(2):281e91.
Li LL, Dan HB, Wang LZ. Undrained behavior of natural marine clay under cyclic
loading. Ocean Engineering 2011;38(16):1792e805.
Matsui T, Bahr MA, Abe N. Estimation of shear characteristics degradation and
stress-strain relationship of saturated clays after cyclic loading. Soils and
Foundations 1992;32(1):161e72.
967
Nath SK, Thingbaijam KKS, Raj A. Earthquake hazard in Northeast IndiaeA seismic
microzonation approach with typical case studies from Sikkim Himalaya and
Guwahati city. Journal of Earth System and Science 2008;117:809e31.
Okur DV, Ansal A. Stiffness degradation of natural fine grained soils during cyclic
loading. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2007;27(9):843e54.
Paul S, Dey AK. Cyclic triaxial testing of fully and partially saturated soil at silchar.
In: Proceedings of the 4th International conference on earthquake geotechnical
engineering. Springer; 2007. p. 1e12.
Perlea VG. Liquefaction of cohesive soils. In: Soil Dynamics and Liquefaction.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE); 2000. p. 58e76.
Prakash S, Sandoval JA. Liquefaction of low plasticity silts. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 1992;11(7):373e9.
Price AB, DeJong JT, Boulanger RW. Cyclic loading response of silt with multiple
loading events. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
2017;143(10). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001759.
Raghukanth STG. Simulation of strong ground motion during the 1950 great Assam
earthquake. Pure and Applied Geophysics 2008;165(9e10):1761e87.
Raghukanth STG, Sreelatha S, Dash SK. Ground motion estimation at Guwahati city
for an Mw 8.1 earthquake in the Shillong plateau. Tectonophysics 2008;448(1e
4):98e114.
Roblee C, Chiou B. A proposed geoindex model for design selection of non-linear
properties for site response analyses. Sacramento, CA, USA: Caltrans Geo-
Research Group; 2004.
Sadrekarimi A. Influence of fines content on liquefied strength of silty sands. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2013;55:108e19.
Sancio RB, Bray JD, Riemer MF, Durgunoglu T. An assessment of the liquefaction
susceptibility of Adapazari silt. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Pacific conference
on earthquake engineering; 2003. Paper No. 172.
Sas W, Gabrys K, Szyman  ski A. Effect of time on dynamic shear modulus of selected
cohesive soil of one section of express way No. S2 in Warsaw. Acta Geophysica
2015;63(2):398e413.
Seed HB, Idriss IM. Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis.
Report No. EERC 70-10. Berkeley, USA: Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California; 1970.
Seed RB, Cetin KO, Moss RE, Kammerer AM, Wu J, Pestana JM, Riemer MF, Sancio RB,
Bray JD, Kayen RE, Faris A. Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: a
unified and consistent framework. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual ASCE Los
Angeles geotechnical spring seminar. ASCE; 2003.
Tan CS, Marto A, Leong TK, Teng LS. The role of fines in liquefaction susceptibility of
sand matrix soils. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2013;18:
2355e68.
Thian SY, Lee CY. Cyclic stress-controlled tests on offshore clay. Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 2017;9(2):376e81.
Vucetic M, Dobry R. Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 1991;117(1):89e107.
Wang W. Some findings in soil liquefaction. Technical report. Beijing, China: China
Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research; 1979 (in Chinese).
Xiao P, Liu H, Xiao Y, Stuedlein AW, Evans TM. Liquefaction resistance of bio-
cemented calcareous sand. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
2018;107:9e19.
Yasuda S, Nagase H, Oda S, Kitsuji K. Comparison of dynamic shear modulus and
damping ratio between stage-test method and fresh-test method. In: Pro-
ceedings of the symposium on dynamic deformation characteristics in dy-
namic problem of ground and soil structures - test and investigation
methods and its application. Japanese Geotechnical Society (JGS); 1994.
p. 127e32.
Yasuhara K, Hirao K, Hyde AFL. Effects of cyclic loading on undrained strength and
compressibility of clay. Soils and Foundations 1992;32(1):100e16.
Yoshida N. Seismic ground response analysis. Springer; 2015.
Shiv Shankar Kumar received his BSc degree in Civil En-
gineering from Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology,
Muzaffarpur, Bihar, in 2009, and his MTech and PhD de-
grees in Geotechnical Engineering from Indian Institute of
Technology Guwahati, Assam, in 2012 and 2018, respec-
tively. He is currently working as a research associate at
the Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Guwahati, Assam. His research interests
include (1) soil dynamics, (2) earthquake geotechnical
engineering, (3) ground response analysis, (4) soil-
structure interaction, and (5) ground improvement tech-
nique for liquefaction mitigation.