OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE PAPER

6200 North Central Expressway NUMBER aTe 2671

Dallas, Texas 75206

Behavior of Soft Clays Under Earthquake

Loading Conditions
By

I. M. Idriss, R. Dobry, E. H. Doyle, and R. D. Singh, Shell Development Co.

THIS PAPER IS SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

©Copyright 1976
Offshore Technology Conference on behalf of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum
Engineers, Inc. (Society of Mining Engineers, The Metallurgical Society and Society of Petroleum Engineers),
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, American Society
of Civil Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Institute of Electrical and Electronics En-
gineers, Marine Technology Society, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, and Society of Naval Architects
and Marine Engineers.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Eighth Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
Tex., May 3-6, 1976. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations
may not be copied. Such use of an abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by
whom the paper is presented.

ABSTRACT be used as a basis for assessing the performance

A new method is present~dto compute the e~~k~~
quake response of soft clay deposits. In this
method, the change of properties of tha soil
during cyclic loading is directly incorporated
into a.nonlinear response calculation in ,the
time domain. The parameters of the stress-
strain model proposed for the clay are obtained
from cyclic shear tests. -A sample problem of_
earthquake response of a soft clay offshore
site is discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Development of seismic design parameters for
offshore structures, such as fixed platforms,
is a complex problem that requires incorporation
of the effects of local site conditions, struc-
tural characteristics, and water. An important
consideration in developing these parameters
is the response in thef:ree field (ie, assuming
no structure present). Studies _related to
free field resporise aurlng-a postulatea seismic
event provide results relevallt to: (a) esti-
mates of ground motions at sea floor or at
some depth below sea floor--these motions may
then be used as a basis for the seismic design
of the structure; (b) estimates of stresses
and displacements induced in the soil by these
motions--the estimated displacements may then
of pile foundations; and (c) evaluation of
ground failure potential of the soil, which may
be manifested in phenomena such as liquefaction
of sands and increase in pore pressures or re-
molding of clays during seismic loading.
A previous publication (1) included a review of
geotechnical aspects related to the seismic de-
sign of offshore structures; that reference also
discussed available observations and analytical
procedures used to estimate ground response to
an assumed baserock motion. For a site where
subsurface conditions consist of horizontal,
or almost horizontal, parallel soil layers, the
response of the soil column to horizontal base-
rock excitation can be reasonably considered as
that of a shear beam. Therefore, calculation
of this response reduces to the solution of one-
dimensional vertically propagating shear waves.
Computer programs like SHAKE can solve the wave
propagation equation and compute the desired
ground response parameters; an equivalent linear
model of the profile is used, with the damping
and stiffness properties of the soil adjusted
to the seismic strain level, to approximate the
actual nonlinear hysteretic behavior of the
soil (2). Most soil response analyses to date,
onshore or offshore, have been done using the
equivalent linear method.

References and illustrations at end of naner.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - -
 606 BEHAVIOR OF SOFT CLAYS UNDER EARTHOUAKE LOADING CONDITIONS
The results of cyclic loading tests on soft
~la~s, such as found in many marine deposits,
lndlcate a degradation in soil stiffness due
to cyclic loading, which may·be important for
the seismic design of an offshore structure
located at a soft clay ;ite. This effect is
associated with an increase in pore pressure
during cyclic loading and also with deteriora-
tion of the structure of the clay due to re-
molding (3, 4, 5, 6). Modulus degradation
of the soil may affect the response character-
istics of.the site and therefore should be con-
sidered in the selection of seismic design
parameters for the offshore structure and its
foundations.
To account for this modulus degradation in re-
sponse analyses, a nonlinear stress-strain model
was developed for soft clays (7). Th~ develop-
men~ of this model was based on the results of
a series of cyclic tests on soft San Francisco·
Bay Mud. A brief description of the basic
characteristics of this model and its use in
nonlinear response calculations together with
results for a sample problem form the subject
of this paper. . decreasing with increasing number.of cycles.
BEHAVIOR OF SOFT CLAYS DURING CYCLIC LOADING
The stress-strain behavior of a soil during one
cycle of shear loading can be approximately
described by a closed hysteretic loop' such as
shown in Fig. 1.Th~ curve defined by the tips
of hysteretic loops associated with different
strain levels is called a "backbone curve", - _.
Figure 1 presents one possible mathematical re-
presentatinn of..the backbone curve and hyster-
etic curve of a soil, based on the use of the
Ramberg-Osgood equation. Figure 2 shows a
backbone curve ·obtained experimentally from a
series of controlled-strain, cyclic triaxial
tests on samples of normally consolidated San
Francisco Bay Mud. In each test, the sample
was first consolidated under a confining pres-
sure of 1.5 ksf and then subjected to 100 cycles
of a uniform cyclic axial strain, with a maxi-
mum amplitude.:. E; for each cycle, the maximum
deviator. stress, ad,· was measured. Each data
point in Fig. 2 corresponds to a different test ,
-" -
and the values of ad and E: presented in the
figure were obtained from the first cycle of
loading. Therefore, the backbone curve in F~g.
2 can be considered representative of the ini-
tial condition of the soil, at the outset of
cyclic loading.
The initial backbone curve for a cyclic triaxial
test, such as shown in Fig. 2, can be considered
a stress-strain function of the form:
During cyclic loading, the backbone curve de-
grades and adopts a position lower than the
-- - - - -
OTC 2671
initial curve described by Eq. 1. The proposed
model assumes that this degradation process
occurs only at the times when the stress changes
sign (ie~ 7v7ry half cycle). T~erefore, Eq. 1
and the lnltlal backbone curve ln Fig. 2 are
associated with the first half cycle of loading.
For subsequent half cycles, new backbone curves
are defined, each having stresses that are a
fraction, 0, of the initial stresses; ie,
(2)
o = 1 for the first half cycle, and its value
decreases continuously during cyclic loading;
o is defined as a Degradation Index. This
Degrad~tion Index may be considered as a mea-
sure of the current value of the stiffness of
the clay, expressed as a fraction of the initial
stiffness.
For any controlled-strain triaxial cyclic test,
the stress, ad, or the secant modulus, ad/E, as
a function of number of cycles plots as a -
straight line on log-log paper, with the modulus
The slope of this line, t, is a measure of the
rate of modulus degradation. The line is
steeper and the val~e of t is larger when a
higher value of strain, E, is applied in the
test. Figure 3 shows the relation between t
and cyclic strain obtained for San Francisco
Bay Mud using the same series of tests mentioned
previously. Six of the cyclic tests shown in
Fig, 3 were perf2rme~ after consolidating the
sample under a confining pressure, a c = 1.5 ksf,
and two tests under ac = 3.0 ksf. The limited
amount of data in Fig. 3 suggests that the
value of t may be independent of confining
pressure.
The stress-strain behavior ofa soft clay, such
as San Francisco Bay Mud, during controlled-
strain tests is fully defined by the initial
backbone curve, associated with the first half
cycle (Fig. 2), together with the relation be-
tween t and strain (Fig. 3). For transient
loading, the proposed model assumes that the
value of Degradation Index, corresponding to
each new half cycle, depends only on two para-
meters: (a) the value of Degradation Index, 0,
for the previous half cycle; and (b) the maximum
strain, E, developed during the previous half ,.
cycle. With this assumption, and after some
algebra, the (negative) increment, ~o, from one
half cycle to the next, is given by:
l+t
,,_ 1 ""t
~u - -- zt (0) (3)
where t is determined from a curve such as Fig ..
3, for the maximum strain develope~ during the _
previous half cycle.
------- - - - - - -
 I. M. IDRISS, R. DOBRY, E. H. DOYLE. AND R. D. SINGH
During the new half cycle, the current backbone
curve, O"d(E), and also the:f:llil stress.":"strain
behavior of.the soil, is completely determined
by Eq. 2, except that the current value, 0 + ~o,
should be used inEq. 2.
To verify the proposed model, the cyclic tests
on San Francisco Bay Mud were extended beyond
100 cycles using varying values of cyclic strain
Figure 4 shows the results of one of these tests
together with the stresses predicted by the
proposed model. In this. test, _~ cyclic axial
strq.in of ,:,2%. was applied during 100 cycles,
then .:.1% was used for the following 100 cycles,
etc., for a total of 800 cycles. The cyclic
stress, O"d; was measuredat different cycles,
and the results are plotted in Fig. 4 together
with the predicted values of stresses. The
effect of degradation is very pronounced in
this test, with 0 dropping to a value of 0.4
at the end of the test; and the agreement be-
tween measured and predicted stresses is very
good. These results, and other tests on San
Francisco Bay Mud not presented her~appear to
confirm the validity of the proposed model for _
transient cyclic loading.
All results for the proposed model have been
presented in terms of deviator stress, O"d, and
axial strain, E, measured during triaxial tests.
Similar conclusions are assumed to be valid for
cyclic loading in the field and can be expressed
in terms of shear stress, T, and shear strain, y.
ANALYTICAL MODEL
Available nonlinear ground response computer
programs (8, g, 10) characterize the shear stress-
strain behavior of the soil by its backbone
curve; for generalized transient loading, the
soil is assumed to behave as a Massing Solid
(1.1, 12). One of the expressions used to repre-
sent actual soil backbone curves is the Ramberg-
Osgood equation (9):
(4)
where T shear stress
y = shear strain
G
max = shear modulus at very small
strains
Yy' a, R soil parameters
The hysteretic loop plotted in Fig. 1 was de-
rived from the application of Massing rules to
the Ramberg-Osgood backbone curve, shown in the
same figure.
Nonlinear ground response program CHARSOIL (9)
utilizes the Ramberg-Osgood equation to describe
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
607
the backbone equation in conjunction with the
use of the method of characteristics to solve
the wave propagation equations.for vertically
propagating shear waves. This program was modi-
fied by the introduction of the proposed soil
degradation mode~ and the new program, thus
specialized to study the seismic response of
soft clay deposits, was designated DCHARM
(Method of Characteristics Including Soil
Degradation). In this new program, Eq. 4 is
assumed to be valid for the initial backbone
curve of the soil which is used for the first
half cycle of seismic loading. For subsequent
half cycles, the equation of the backbone curve
is modified as follows:
~ ~)J
_ Y T T
Y- 8 Gmax Y + a 0 Gmax yy (5)
Y y
where o is the current value of the Degradation
Index at each level within the soil profile.
The use of program DCHARM to analyze the re-
sponse of soft clay deposits requires defining
the following input soil parameters :
1. Total unit weight of soil at different
depths.
2. Gm~x at differentdepth~ for the initial
condition of the soil.
3. Ramberg-Osgood parameters Yy ' a, and R.
These parameters, together with Gmax '
completely define the .initial bacKDone
curve to be used in the first half cycle
of loading.
4. Relationship between degradation parameter,
t, and shear strain, y.
5. Values of shear viscosity at different
depths, if a viscosity is to be added to
the profile (9).
6. A minimum value of d that the clay can adopt.
EXAMPLE PROBLEM
The example selected to illustrate the use of
the method is an uffshore site, where the soil
conditions consist of approximately 200 ft of
silty clay underlain by rock. This site was
described with some detail in a previous publi-.
cation, which also included results of a ground
response analysis of the site using the equi-
valent linear method (1).
Selection of Soil Parameters
Figures 5 and 6 reproduce the experimental
curves showing the influence of cyclic shear
strain on the secant modulus, G/Gmax , and on
the damping ratio, A. These curves were ob-
tained from controlled-strain cyclic triaxial
and torsion laboratory tests conducted on re-
presentative samples of the clay from the site.
The experimental curves in Figs. 5 and 6 were
- - - _ . -
 608 S13FT CT.AYS TTNllFREARTHQUAKE LOADING CONDITIONS
--. -., ------ OF ---------
RT3T-IAVTOR OTC 2671

used to define the Ramberg-Osgoodparameters of as described above. Some results of the cal-
the initial backbone curve, used for DCW culations are presented in Figs. 7 and 8, where
calculations. The Rambexg-Osgoodexpressions they are compared with the results of the anal-
for G/Gmax and A obtaitiedfrom Eq. 4 are as yses for the same rock excitation and soil pro-
follows: ““ file, computed by the equivalent linear method
(1).
—.G .1..
(6al There are two basic differencesbetween these
G R-1
max two procedures. One differencepertains to
l+aG~
()max ‘y the use of the equivalent linear (SHAKE) or
nonlinear (DCHARM)procedure, and the other
difference is the effect of degradation,allowed
R by DCHARM but not by SHAKE. To separate the
T influence of these two effects on the results,
G an additional analysis was performed with
A(%) _ 100C4 ()max ‘y
‘r -Y_ (6b) DCW but without degradation (ie, 6 = 1 for
() all strain leveis); this is equivalent to using
‘Y the original program CHARSOIL. The results
computed with this additionalnonlinear cal-
The followingparameters were selected for the. culation (CHARSOIL)are also included in Figs.
clay at this site: Yy = 0.02%, R= 3, a= 1. 7 and 8.
The theoreticalcurves for G/Gmax and A, com-
puted from Eqs. 4 and 6 for this set of para- Figure 7 presents the input rock accelerogram
meters, are compared in Figs. 5 and 6 with the used and the accelerationtime histories com-
experimentalcurves. The agreement for the puted at depths of 25 ft (SHAKE) and 30 ft
modulus in Fig. 5 is good. The agreement for (CHARSOILand DCHARM). As can be noted, the
the damping in Fig. 6.is good for large strains; three computed time histories are very similar
at small strains, the theoreticalA tends to and significantlydifferent from the applied
zero, while the experimentalcurve has a minimum baserock motions both in amplitude and frequency
value of A = 4%.. To “accountfor this difference content. The three computed maximum ground
at small-strains,and to avoid unrealistichigh accelerationsat the depths of 25 or 30 ft
frequency oscillationsin the computed ground range between 0.11 and 0.13 g, which represents
motions, a shear viscosity was added to the a significantdeamplificationof the 0.33 g
soil, with a value equivalent to a damping ratio maximum rock accelerationused as input. High
of 4% at small strains and at the fundamental frequency motions predominate in the input rock
period of the soil deposit. excitation,while low frequency (long period)
motions predominate in the ground response com-
The initial backbone curve was completely de- puted by all methods.
fined by the selection of the Ramberg-Osgood
parameters, described aboye; andbythe val_ues Figure 8 presents the accelerationresponse
of Gmax at different.depthsof the soil profile. spectra, for a 5% spectral damping ratio, cor-
For the calculationspresented in this paper, responding to the accelerationtime histories
the same values of Gmax,used for the equivalent shown in Fig. 7. The three response spectra
linear model calculationsin ref. (l), were correspondingto ground motions at depths of
utilized. 25 to 30 ft are very similar and significantly
different from the input spectrum. While the
In-additionto the initial backbone curve, valid input rock spectrum has a predominant period
for the first half cycle of loading, a relation- of approximately0.55 see, all”computed ground
ship between the degradationparameter, t, and spectra have a predominant period of about 2.5
shear strain, such as shown in Fig. 3, was de- sec, indicatingthat the effect of the soft
fined for the clays in the 200-ft deposit and clay profile was to deamplify the motions at
used in the calculations.‘ This relationship low periods while amplifying them at a period
was based on the results of controlled-strain of about 2.5 sec. This amplificationat a soft
and controlled-stresscyclic triaxial tests site may be significant for a long period struc-
performed on clay s~ples_from the site. A ture, such as an offshore platform. The ordi-
minimum value of the Degradation Index, 6 = 0.4, nate of the maximum spectral accelerationsin
was selected for the clay. Fig. 8 at a period of about 2.5 sec is 0.38 g
using program DCHARM and 0.63 g using program
Computed Ground Response - SHAKE, which can be a significantdifference if
the spectrum is to be used for the seismic de-
The response of t_he200-ft clay profile to a sign of a structure. The correspondingvalue
baserock horizontal excitationhaving a maximum using program CHARSOIL is 0.54 g, indicating
accelerationof 0.33 g was computed using pro- that most of this difference between SHAKE and
gram DCW, with the soil parameters selected DCHARM is due to the effect of degradation

.
 I. M. IDIUSS. ‘R. DO13RY1
,—.l?. .---
rather than to the use of a nonlinear”instead
of equivalent linear method.
Additional results and comparisonsincluded:
maximum acceleration,maximum shear stress,
maximum shear strain, and maximum soil displace-
meritwith respect to rock at various depths in
the soil profile. The three sets of values
were generally similar, with the effect of de-
gradation being to decrease calculatedaccel-
erations and stresses at shallow depths below
sea”floor and to increase calculated strains
an-ddisplacementsat all depths.
Figure 9 shows the evolution of the Degradation
Index, 8, with time during the earthquakeat a
depth of 30 ft. Figure -lO”pre&entsthe value
of 6 at the end of the earthquake at different
depths. The value of 6 at most depths in Fig.
10 is between 0.4 and 0.6, suggesting a sub-
stantial increase in pore pressures or partial
remolding of the clay in the profile caused by
the prescribed input motions.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. A new stress-strainmodel, which incorpo-
rates the effect of.modulus degradation for
soft clays subjected to cyclic shear loading,
was developed and verified experimentallyfor
normally consolidatedSan Francisco Bay Mud.
2. A nonlinear ground response computer pro-
gram, DCHARM, was developed by incorporating
the degrading soil model into an existing pro-
gram. The program uses the method of charac-
teristics to solve the one-dimensionalwave’
equation, and it allows modification of material
properties with tirne,.due
to increase in pore
pressure or remolding. It is hoped that this
program would provide an improvementin the
engineeringtools available for assessing-the
seismic response at sites underlain.bysoft
clay sediments.
3. A sample problem was selected of a soft
clay offshore site. Results of response cal-
culations using the same baserock excitation
but different methods of analysis were presented
and compared. The’analyticalmethods used were:
(a) Equivalent Linear (programSHAKE), (b) Non-
linear (progiarnCHARSOIL), and _(c)Nonlinear
with Modulus Degradation (programDC-). For 6. Wilson, N. E., and Greenwood, J. R.: ltPore
the sample problem, the main effect of degra-
dation is to significantlydecrease spectral
accelerationsin the long period range at shal-
low depths below sea floor. Other effects,
such as decrease in induced stresses and in-
crease in relative displacements,were not
fully addressed in this paper. These latter
effects would be taken into account in assessing
performanceat a specific site _andin evaluating
the consequencesof the occurrence of a seismic
event.
H. nfwT,ti.
=.-+ ,.-Arvn”
-,-. R.. n
=.”
STNTCU
-,, u .L
6
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The theoretical studies and the laboratory.
testing leading to the development of the basic
approach outlined in this paper were supported
by a research grant from the ProfessionalDe-
velopment Progran.of lfoodward-ClydeConsultants
(WCC]. The new program has been used in as-
sessing ground response characteristicsfox a
number of cases for a group of oil companies.
The authors gratefully acknowledgethis support
The authors are also indebted to Professor-
J. Lysmer, University of California at Berkeley
for his helpful suggestions on the use and li-
mitations of nonlinear numerical procedures.
Other WCC personnel who contributedto this
work included J. Wilson, director of WCC’S
laboratoriesin Oakland, California;Dr. R. Akk]
E. Ng; R. Youngs; and R. Murarka.
REFERENCES
1. Idriss, I. M., Dobry, R., and Power, M. S.:
!IsoilResponse Considerationsin Seismic
Design of Offshore Platforms,ttJournal-of
Petroleum Engineering,March 1976.
2. Schnabel, P. B., Lysmer, J., and Seed, H. B,
!ls~KE--A Computer program for Earthquake
Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered
Sites,” Report No. EERC 72-12, Earthquake
EngineeringResearch Center, University of
California, Berkeley, 1972.
3. Thiers, G. R., and Seed, H. B.: ‘tCyclic
Stress-StrainCharacteristicsof Clay,”
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, ASCE, vol. 94, No. SM2, March
1968, p. 555-569.
4. Esrig, M. I., Ladd, R. S., and Bea; R. G.:
!!Materialproperties of SubmarineMissis-
sippi Delta Sediments Under Simulated Wave
Loadings,??paPer “presentedin Offshore
Technology Conference,OTC 2188, Dallas,
Texas, 1975.
5. Sangrey, D. A., Hankel, D. J., and Esrig,
M. 1.: !t~e Effective Stress Response of a
Saturated Clay Soil to Repeated Loading,”
Canadian GeotechnicalJournal,6,241,”1969.
Pressures and Strains After Repeated Load-
ing of Saturated Clay,” Canadian Geotechnical
Journal,ll,269, 1974.
7. Idriss, I. M., Dobry, R., and Singh, R. D.:
I!EarthquakeResponse of Soft ClaY Deposits
IncludingModulus DegradationEffects,” in
preparation,to be submitted for possible
publication in the Journal of the Geotech-
nical EngineeringDivision, ASCE, 1976.
10 BEHAVIOR OF SOFT CLAYS UNDER LRTHQUAKELOADING CONDITIONS OTC 2671

8. Idriss, I. M., and Seed, H. B.: ‘tSeismic
Response_ofHorizontal Soil Layers,” Journal
of.Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division,
ASCE, Vol. 94, No. SM4, July-1968,”p. 1003-
1031.
9. Streeter, V. L., Wylie, E. B., and Richart,
F. E.: IIsoilMotion Computationsby Char-
acteristicMethod,” Journal of the Geotech-
nical Engineering Division, ASCE~ Vol. 100,
No. GT3, March 1974.
10. Joyner, W. B., and Chen, A. T. F.: !!Cal-
culation of Nonlinear Ground Response in
Earthquakes,” Bulletin “of the Seismological
SOCietY of America, Vol. 65, No. 5, p. 1315-
1336, 1975.
11. Massing, G.: !!Eigenspannungen.
and Verfesti-
gung beim Messing,11proceedings Of the
Second InternationalCongress of Applied
Mechanics, p. 332-335, 1926.
12. Iwan, W. D.: !t~ a Class of Models for the
Yielding Behavior of Continuous and Compo-
site Systems,” Journal of Applied Mechanics,
Paper No. 67-APM-S, Transactionsof ASME,”
1967.

Backbone Curve
-r A’ ‘max

Y=yy &&+a (Gm:xyyR)]

[

Y
●

FIG, 1 - RAMBERG-OSGOOD BACKBONE CURVE AND STEADY-STATE HYSTERESIS LOOP,

 FC = 1.5 ksf

Cycle No. = 1

-“ ●
_/-
/-. -
/ /“
-0
(D - /-
4 x’ ‘ =
!s(%) 0.02[0.5 Ud +0.2 (0.5”@l
/ “
/
/

/
/
/
P ● Experimental
Data

o 0.5 1.0 .1.5 2.0 2,5

AXIALSTiAIN(kc) - PERCENT
FIG, 2 -}ACKBONE CURVE FROM STRAIN-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TEST, SAN
FRANCISCO BAY MUD,

0.25 t
● UC = 1.5 ksf

A rC = 3.0 ksf

0.20

0.15
A

0.10 /

●
0.05 db

0
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
-CYCLIC AXIAL STRAIN, 6 -- PERCENT
FIG, 3 - DEGRADATION PARAMETER T vs STRAIN-STRAIN-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TESTS,
SAN FRANCISCO BAY MUD,
 E=?2%. *1% *0.03% *2% ?1% f3.03%
- 1.0
m
Y
u“’0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 ,

~
1600

----- 1 ~------ ~ = cdl (Degradationnot al1owed)

1 ~

‘f
I
1 I 1
1200
‘1 I I
1 ~ I
L -----. , L-
: ----: m.
! 1
.800 I
I I
● I I
t) I ; Ud . Small(Degradationallowed)
/ 4I

400 b--
I .
() ● ()
~---- 4) ,/---
/0 ● -,
●
● t)
It

—-_
, ‘MEASUREO
0
o 100 200- 300 400 500 600 700 800
NUMBEROF CYCLES,N
FIG, 4”- TRANSIENT CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TEST, SAN FRANCISCO BAY MUD,

1.0
—~’-
W.

E
-%b
‘ .>
12.8 \ \
‘1,\ FROMTESTRESULTS
1, Y
0.6
x Used for calculations by Ii
& DCHARM and CHARSOIL \
(Ramberg-Osgoodwith:~\ \
2 Yy = ~.02%, R = 3, ci= 1) \
\J
0.4
\\

\
k>%
0.2’

\\
-L \ .
----- _
----
0.
10-4 10-3 10-1 1 10
SHEAR STRAIN
, y - PERCENT
FIG, 5 - EXAMPLE RELATIONSHIP - REDUCTION IN MODULUS vs SHEAR STRAIN, SILTY CLAYS,
,
3!

//--
30

7’”
25
<7”
20
~7’
/
//
15
,//
FROM TEST RESULTS /’

10 /‘
~Used for calculation by
DCHARMand CHARSOIL
/ (Ramberg -OsgDod with:
,/ ,ij Yy = 0.02%, R= 3, a= 1)
5
/’ /
———
/

/0’
———- -—-
0 .A 3 .7 .
10”7 10-J 10-G 1o-1
1 10
SHEAR STRAIN , Y - PERCENT
FIG, 6 - EXAMPLE RELATIONSHIP - DAMPING RATIO vs SHEAR STRA N, SILTY CLAYS,
C@h,
Feat ,Sam moor

-0.2 EO 70.80’
0 10 20 30 40= 93 G

0.2 .. .. .
Non-linear
(CHARSOIL)

: 0.1

5-

+-!3 0.0
s
3:
-0.1

-0,2
9 10 20 30 T3 5a . ~. 70 w’%

-!3,2
4 I
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 . 80 92
.

1 1
0.’3

0.2

0.1

-25 0.0.
!=
s
ij -0.1

-0.2

-0.3

BEDROCK
-0,4
q 10 20 30 40 xl m 70 _ 80 90
TIME Iil SECO!IDS

FIGi 7 - EXAMPLE GROUND RESPONSE CALCULATIONS FOR AN

OFFSHORE PLATFORM SITE,
“T—57777
S$AC.1Dmn$d
=5%
0.7
— CW1v.k. L..r (SHAKE!

‘— NC.I-lkiw G* CWraMim @CHARMl

. P

Sas

1
u

k%

6! — - —

—
L32

,.*

—i

! 0.64

0,s3

0,,0, 0,s Q.m 1,(4 ml tam

IMM.oaxcm

FIG, 8 - EXAMPLE GROUND RESPONSE CALCULATIONS FOR AN OFFSHORE PLATFORM SITE:

RESPONSE SPECTRA,

1.1.
1.0
Depth = 30 Feet
0.9

0.8 \

0.7

0.6
\

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

o
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
TIME, SECONDS
FIG, 9 --EXAMPLE RESULTS: DEGRADATION INDEX VS TIME DURING EARTHQUAKE EXCITATION,
 DEGRADATION INDEX , ~ , AT THE END OF EARTHQUAKE (t = 85 sec. )
0 “0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
0

20

40 — — — —

60

80

l--
U
?
100
.
r
+
L
m
D
120

d
140

160

180

200 9

220
FIG, 10 - EXAMPLE RESULTS: DEGRADATION INDEX AT
END OF EARTHQUAKE EXCITATION,