Riley M. Chung, 1Felix Y. Yokel, 1 a n d Vince P.
Drnevieh 2
Evaluation of Dynamic Properties of Sands by Resonant
Column Testing
REFERENCE: Chung, R. M., Yokel, F. Y., and Drnevieh, V. P., "Eval-
uation of Dynamic Properties of Sands by Resonant Column Testing,"
Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 7, No. 2, June 1984,
pp. 60-69.
ABSTRACT: Torsional resonant column tests were performed on Mon-
terey No. 0 sand of 60% relative density under confining pressures rang-
ing from 10 to 300 kPa to evaluate the dynamic properties of the sand.
Both solid and hollow cylindrical specimens were used in testing, and
shear moduli and damping ratios were determined for cyclic shear strain
amplitudes from 10-4 to 5 × 10-2%. The test results indicated that the
type of specimen, that is, solid or hollow cylinder, had no significant ef-
fect on the calculated shear moduli and damping ratios, except that at
very low strain amplitudes (3' -< 10-3%) where the shear moduli of the
hollow specimens tended to be slightly lower and the damping ratios
slightly higher. Multistage testing had no significant effect on the shear
moduli when the values were compared with those from the single-stage
testing; however, multistage testing had a significant effect on the damp-
ing ratios under a confining pressure t00 kPa. Both shear moduli and
damping ratios obtained in this program correlate well with other avail-
able data.
KEYWORDS: damping, sands, shear strain, damping ratio, resonant
column testing, shear modulus, soil dynamics, specimen preparation
Nomenclature
di Inner diameter of the specimen, mm
do Outer diameter of the specimen, m m
e Void ratio
G Shear modulus, MPa
Gmax Shear modulus at smallest measured shear strain
( < 1 0 - 3 % ) , MPa
H Height of the specimen, m m
K A coefficient depending on the plasticity index of soil;
K = 0 for cohesionless soils
O C R Overconsolidation ratio
3' Average shear strain amplitude
1Research geotechnical engineer and leader, respectively, Geotechnical
Engineering Group, Center for Building Technology, National Bureau of
Standards, Washington, DC 20234.
2Chairman and professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506.
© 1984 by the American Society for Testing and Materials
60
3'dry Dry density, k g / m 3
k Damping ratio
p Specimen mass density, k g / m 3
oo Mean effective confining pressure, kPa
Resonant column tests are increasingly used in practice to deter-
mine dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios of soils, tt has been
recognized that strains in hollow cylindrical specimens subjected to
torsion vary over a narrow range while the shear strains of similarly
loaded solid cylindrical specimens vary from zero at the center to a
maximum at the perimeter. It has also been observed that shear
moduli as well as damping ratios are strain dependent. For these
two reasons, hollow specimens because of their more uniform shear
strain distribution should provide more accurate measurement of
shear modulus and damping ratios.
In many instances it is necessary to obtain data for shear moduli
and damping ratios over a range of confining pressures. This can be
accomplished by several single-stage tests, where a specimen is sub-
jected to a given confining pressure and then tested over a range of
shear strain amplitudes or by a multistage test, where a specimen is
tested at a given confining pressure and subsequently retested at
other levels of confining pressure. While the latter procedure is
much more economical, the question arises whether compaction
and fabric changes caused by repeated strain cycles, particularly at
the higher strain amplitudes, will alter the dynamic properties of
the specimen and thus yield test results that are no longer represen-
tative of the specimen as originally prepared.
The resonant column test results presented in this paper were ob-
tained as part of a National Bureau of Standards (NBS) study of the
liquefaction of sandy soils. Solid as well as hollow specimens were
used to measure the shear moduli and damping ratios of soils. Fur-
thermore, single-stage and multistage tests were conducted to study
the effect of cyclic strain on the dynamic properties of sand. In this
paper, data from solid and hollow specimens, as well as data from
single-stage and multistage tests, are compared to determine the ef-
fect of these testing techniques. The test results are also compared
with other available information on shear moduli and damping ra-
tios of sands.
Available Information
The first use of the resonant column technique to determine dy-
namic soil properties dates back to the late 1930s when Iida per-
0149-6115/84/000643060502.50

formed resonant column tests on soils under very low confining pres-
sures [1,2]. In the 1960s and 1970s the resonant column testing
technique was considerably refined by a number of researchers, and
several studies were conducted [3-13]. The findings of these studies
are summarized in Table 1.
In 1972, Hardin and Drnevich [8] recommended the following
equation for calculating the shear modulus of both cohesive and co-
hesionless soils
Gmax = 1230[(2.973 - e)2/(1 + e)] (OCR)K (a6)°'s (1)
where
Gmax = shear modulus at the lowest measured shear strain am-
plitude, psi,
e void ratio,
OCR : overconsolidation ratio,
K : a coefficient depending on the plasticity index of soil;
K = 0 for cohesionless soils, and
6= mean effective confining stress, which is the ambient
stress applied in testing, psi.
Equation 1 has since been widely used for estimating the shear mod-
ulus in the absence of actual experimental data.
In 1978 Hardin [9] revised the form of Eq 1 to
G = [S (OCR)k/(0.3 + 0.7 e2)] Pla-n (a6)n (2)
where
S = stiffness coefficient (no units),
Pa = atmospheric pressure, units the same as G and a 6, and
n ---- power of stress.
If a value of S equal to 625 and a value of n equal to 0.5 are chosen,
~his equation becomes
G = [625 (OCR)K/(0.3 + 0.7 e2)] (Pa a6)°'s (3)
Equation 3 gives essentially the same values of shear modulus as
Eq 1 for most soils but has two major advantages over Eq 1. The
first is that Eq 3 applies for all systems of units because it is dimen-
sionally correct. The units of shear modulus will be the same as those
for atmospheric pressure and confining stress. The second advan-
tage is that Eq 3 applies for soils that may have large void ratios. An
examination of Eq 1 reveals that the shear modulus must approach
zero as the void ratio approaches 2.973. In Eq 3, the shear modulus
approaches zero only as the void ratio approaches infinity.
In 1978, ASTM Subcommittee 18.09 on Dynamic Properties of
Soils initiated a round robin resonant column test program for deter-
mining the dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio of Monterey
No. 0 sand [11]. Solid cylindrical specimens were used in the tests.
The values predicted by Eq 1 are within the range of these test re-
sults, but Eq 1 predicts moduli that are slightly lower than the aver-
age of the test results.
Test Equipment and Setup
The resonant column device used in the NBS tests uses cylindrical
specimens that are fixed at the base with excitation forces applied to
the top. The device has been described elsewhere [14]. The appara-
CHUNG ET AL ON RESONANT COLUMN TESTING 61
tus has the capability of applying both longitudinal and torsional
excitations; however, only the torsional mode was used in this test
series. The setup is shown in Fig. 1.
Two types of specimens were used: (1) a solid cylindrical speci-
men with the nominal dimensions of d = 71 mm and H = 143 mm
and (2) a hollow cylindrical specimen, with nominal inside and out-
side diameters of 35 and 71 mm, respectively, and a nominal height of
76 ram. The hollow specimen was constructed between a membrane
covered mandrel that forms the inner diameter and a membrane cov-
ered split mold that forms the outer diameter. Because actual spec-
imen dimensions varied slightly from the nominal values, dimen-
sions were measured individually for each specimen constructed.
Test Material
Monterey No. 0 sand was used in all the tests. This type of sand
has been used extensively by geotechnical engineers in evaluating
properties of cohesionless soils subjected to dynamic loading. A par-
ticle size distribution curve and index properties of the Monterey
No. 0 sand, obtained by Mulilis et al [15], are shown in Fig. 2 and
Table 2, respectively. Figure 3 also includes the test results by NBS,
conducted to verify the gradation distribution.
Test Procedures
Oven-dried materials were used in the specimen preparation, and
all the specimens were prepared to a relative density of approxi-
mately 60% using a dry tapping method, with the exception of Spec-
imen M-102 where a moist tamping method with an initial water
content of 6% was used. The preparation method of "undercom-
paction" described by Ladd [16] was adopted. Details of specimen
preparation for both hollow and solid cylindrical specimens are
given in Ref 17.
After the specimen was set up in the confining chamber under a
positive confining pressure of 10 kPa, and earlier at the stage when
the specimen was held by 10 kPa of vacuum, a small-amplitude tor-
sional shakedown test with an average shear strain amplitude of
about 5 × 10-4% was conducted to determine the system response.
The tests were also used to detect any specimen disturbance caused
by the assembling operation by observing the linear variable dif-
ferential transformer (LVDT) readings that measure the change in
specimen height.
After shakedown, test procedures for each specimen varied from
this point depending on the combination of the following three ma-
jor operations: (1) Gma× determination; (2) evaluation of shear
modulus, G versus shear strain 2~ at a specific confining stress
(single-stage testing); and (3) repetition of the testing of G versus 7
at higher confining stresses after the completion of the single-stage
testing (multistage testing).
To determine Gmax, the shear modulus and damping were deter-
mined by applying a torsional excitation force of very low magni-
tude to the specimen that produced average shear strain amplitudes
of less than 10-3%. The test was started at the lowest confining
pressure of 10 kPa and repeated for intermediate confining pres-
sures up to a maximum confining pressure of 300 kPa. Three mag-
nitudes of confining pressure, 50, 100, and 300 kPa, were chosen to
study the shear modulus as a function of shear strain amplitude. In
single-stage testing, the confining pressure was brought to the de-
sired magnitude, and the resonant column testing initiated with a
very small torsional excitation force, which produced an average
 O~
1"O

TABLE 1--Summary o f e q u a t i o n f o r area x e s t t "m a t t o "n . "

m
Units Of Strain Range of a.{ Equivalent Equation for Gmax O
/
Investigators Year Materials r[ested Specimen rl'ypesa Equatkal for Gnlax Gnlax and o~3 Amplitude 7 Void Ratio kPa (psf) Using Other Units Investigators I'FI
C)
"r
Hardin and Richart I.~1 11t6.3 (tmiform) and welt- solid cylindrical empirical equations fc}r wave velocilies ... 10 4 or tess 0.5 to 0.79 14.4 (300) . . . . . .
Z
graded Ottawa sand specimen were proposed
(uniform) crushed 0.63 to 1.27 480 (10 000)
6>
quartz sand I'-
(well-graded crushed D = 28 m m 0.73 to 1.40 "-t
quartz silt 11 ~ 279 hill/ m
6O
--t
Hardin 14 [ 1965 (round grains) solid cylindrical (I) o{ > 2000 psf o3 psf 2.5 × 10 5 e < 0.8 14.4 (300) to 480 G = 700 [(2.17 e)2/(I + ell c,jV2 Iwasaki and Tatsuoka,
Ottawa sand specimen G =: 1(32.17 - 14.8e)2/(I + 19t or3j/2 G psi (io ooo) o~, G in k g / c m 2 1977 [101
E
14.4 (300) to 480
O = 38 into (2) aj < 2000 psf aj psi 2.5 X 10 5 e < 0,8
(10 000) 3
H -- 279 mm G = 1122.52 - 10.6e12/(I + e) ej 1/~' G psi
C

Z
(angular grains) solid cylindrical G = 1(30.09 -- 10,12e)2/(I t ell o:]/) ajpsf 2,5 X 10 " ., 14,4(31XI) to480 G = 321, [(2.97 -- e)2/(l + e)~ o~I/2 Iwasaki and Tatsuoka,
cDashed quartz speciman G psi (10 000) oj, G in k g / c m 2 1977 1101 W"
D :: 38 lllnl or
H = 279 m m G = 1230 [(2.97 - e)2/(l + ell oj t/2 Hardin and Black, I968
aj, G in psi [5] and later Hardin
and Drnevieh,
1972 [81
Hardin and Black [81 1%8 kaolin clay solid cylindrical G = 1230 1(2.973 - e)2/(I + ell o{V). oj, G in psi 10-4 or less 0.76 to 0.89 192 (4000) to 383 G [(30,09-- 10.12e)2/(1 F e ) ] o j l / 2 Hardin, 196514]
specimen (8,000) o~ psf, G psi for angular grains
II = 80 m m or
G = 326 [(2.97 -- e)2/(l + eli aj t/2 Iwasaki and Tatsuoka,
aj, G in k g / c m 2 1977 [101
Drnevich and 1970 Otta*~a sand hollow cylindrical G = 1(32.17 14.8e)2/(1 + ,')1 o'1/2 o,i psf < 10 5 0.46 to I).65 14.4 (300) G ~- 700 [(2.17 -- e)2/(l + ell a~ I/2 lwasaki and Tatsuoka,
Rieharl [ 6 t 20-30 specimen G p si 480 ( I 0 000) oj 1/2, G in k g / c m 2 1977 1101
31150 ID ~= 41) mm
O D :-" S0 and 60 nliIi
H 3/1/) ii1111

Hardinand 1972 good forhoih uadis- ... G = 12301(2.97 e}2/(I + e}i a{,Gpsi 2.5 N l(I 5 < 2.0 , .. same as Eq 3 text Hardin, 1%5 19I
Drnevich I~'1 Ittrbed cohesive (OCR K a~l/2 alld less
soils alld sands

Iwasaki and 1977 fifteen ~ypes of clean hollm~ cylindrical G : 900 1(2.17 - e f t / ( l ÷ I'll off "4 at, G, kg/cm 2 101' 0,61 to 0.86 19.2 (400) to 575
Tatsuoka IlOI sar, ds, (round, specimen (12 000)
subangular, and ID : 60 m m G = 850 1(2.17 -- e)2/(l + eli 03T M ,~),. G , k g / c m 2 10 5 0.55 ~o 0.&'4 19.2 (40tl) to 575
;mgtdar in shape) OD 100 Illlll (12 000)
II -- 2 5 0 m m G -- 71R11(2.17 " e)2/(l + i'll a~05 oj, G, kg/cm 2 10 " 1 ().(U to 0.N~ 19.2 (400) to 575 G = [(32.17 14.8e)2/(1 + ell Hardin, 1965 [41 and
(12 ooo) oj psf, G psi later Drnevich and
Richarl, 1970 [61
Drnevich (Prclhnina D' 1978 Monterey No. 11 sand solid specimens G - 1230 112.973 -- e)2/(I I- ell a,{I/2 aj, G, psi < l0 5 0.657 to 0,688 48 (11300) to 287 see Hardin and Drnevich [18]
ASTM round-robin 36 nlm diameter (6O00)
tes0ng program) [lll D X 75 nlnl tf to
150 iii111D
D ~( 300 lllln tt

Kokusho II-?[ 1980 Toyoura and Gifu tria×kd testing G = 840 1(2.17 -- e)2/(I F ell O'3t/2 el, G, kg/cnl 2 I0 i, 0.640 to 0.793 96 (2000) to 192
sand solid specimens (4000)
D - 50 mm
H :: I00 mln

a iD is inside diameter, O D is outside diameter, D is diameter of solid specimen, and H is the height of the specimen.
 C H U N G ET AL ON R E S O N A N T C O L U M N TESTING 63
POWER AMPLIFIER
TABLE 2--1ndex properties for Monterey No. 0 sand, Mulilis et al [151.

Properties Values

Unified Soil ClassificationSystem Group Symbol SP

Mean specific gravity 2.65
Particle size distribution data
/)so, mm" 0.36
C,b 0.9
A C,,~ 1.5
8, Dry unit weight data
D~ maximum, kg/m3 1693.15
minimum, kg/m3 1430.45

ETIC "D50 is mean grain size.

LS
b c c = (D3o)2/(Deo X Dlo), coefficient of curvature.
NDRI-
;N "C,, = Dro/Dlo, coefficient of uniformity.

500 i I r I

Monterey No. 0 sand

Dr = 60% "]/dry : 1577 kg/m3
A. D, DIGITAL READOUT DIGITAL FREQUENCY
FOR TORSIONAL METER 200 Hollow cylindrical Solid
EXCITATION specimen specimen .
B. DIGITAL READOUT FORCE AND
F O R LVDT ROTATIONAL
~, M ~ I N SWITCH k
TRANSDUCER O M-102 * M-117
(.. DIGITAL READOUT OUTPUT ~ OSCILLOSCOPE om-~o3 ,~-,'~
F O R PORE W A T E R 1OO M-109
PRESSURE ~. CONTROL BOX
rm
FIG. 1--Resonant column test setup.

==
GRAVEL [ SAND SILT OR CLAY i 3E
~0. Pa, Gmax in same units
, COARSE J FINE I COARSEI MtOIOid [ FINE o
le
0iameter UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATIONSYSTI~! 20
~ ~ U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
3" 1½" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 I00 20e
100

10 Io I l l I I
10 20 50 100 200 500 1000
m,
CONFINING PRESSURE, ~o ~kPat
]]llii[ 1
Iillll I ii FIG. 3 - - M a x i m u m shear modulus versus cot~'ining pressure.
I
3S Tt, s~ ",u, ; A
IIIllll I
conducted on 6 out of 16 specimens. The other specimens were
Ilil!t~ !
x~ brought up to the desired confining pressure to study the relation-
[]]I~ ]
I]][ L ship of G versus 7. Confining pressures used during single-stage
IIl/lli I
11111tl I ,,rr IlL L [" ,~",~L testing for each specimen are shown in Table 3.
100 10 0.1 0.01
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Analysis of Test Results
FIG. 2--Grain size distribution of Monterey No, 0 sand.
Summaries of the tests conducted are given in Table 3. The aver-
age dry density of the tested specimens was 1577 kg/m 3 with a stan-
shear strain amplitude of 10-3% or less. The applied torsional exci- dard deviation of 4.0 kg/m 3. This density is equivalent to a void
tation force was removed from the top of the specimen after the ratio of 0.676 and a relative density of approximately 60%. The
resonant frequency, the accelerometer readings, and the longitudi- range of dry densities for the tested specimens varied from 1573 to
nal displacement were recorded. Subsequently, the excitation force 1585 kg/m 3, with an equivalent range of relative densities from 58.5
was increased to a higher leveL, normally double the magnitude of to 62.9%, as indicated in Table 3. In all figures, test data points ob-
the previous force, and the test procedures described above were re- tained from solid cylindrical specimen testing are shown with solid
peated. A maximum amplitude of the average shear strain of about symbols, whereas open symbols are used for data points from the
5 X 10-2% was obtained using this resonant column test appa- testing of hollow cylindrical specimens.
ratus. Multistage testing was similar to the single-stage testing. The shear modulus, average shear strain, and damping ratio k of
After a test series was completed under a given confining pressure, each specimen were calculated from the test results using equations
the confining pressure in the chamber was increased to a higher given in Ref 14.
level, and the testing was repeated. Figure 3 shows the measured shear moduli at very small shear
Determination of Gmax as a function of confining pressure was strains (approximately 10-3%) Gmax as a function of confining
64 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

TABLE 3 - - S u m m a r y of resonant column test program."

Dry Unit Weight, Relative Density Gmax G Versus 3' at

Specimen Specimen Type kg/m 3 D r, % Void Ratio e Determination o~ ----kPa

M-101 hollow cylinder 1579 60.7 0.674 X 100

M-102 hollow cylinder 1575 59.3 0.678 X 100
M-103 hollow cylinder 1585 62.9 0.668 X 100
M-104 hollow cylinder 1573 58.5 0.680 ,,, 50
M-106 solid 1577 60.0 0.676 ... 50 100 and 300
M-107 solid 1573 58.5 0.680 X 50 100 and 300
M-108 hollow cylinder 1575 59.3 0.678 ... 50 100 and 300
M-109 hollow cylinder 1575 59.3 0.678 X 300
M-110 hollow cylinder 1583 62.2 0.670 ... 300
M-111 hollow cylinder 1578 60.4 0.675 ... 300
M-1t2 hollow cylinder 1580 61.1 0.673 ... 100 300
M-113 hollow cylinder 1579 60.7 0.674 ... 50 100 and 300
M-114 solid 1573 58.5 0.680 ... 50 100 and 300
M-116 solid 1577 60.0 0.676 100 300
M-117 solid 1573 58.5 0.680 ~X' 300
M-118 solid 1584 62.6 0.668 ... 300

aNOTE: Specimen M-102 was prepared by moist tamping with initial water content of 6%. All other specimens were prepared by
dry tapping, oo = mean effective confining pressure.

pressure. The maximum shear moduli calculated from some of the 180 I -- I [ I q- [ T 1
Monterey No, 0 sand
hollow cylinder tests tended to be slightly lower than those obtained Dr 60% "Ydry 1577 kg/m 3
from the solid cylinder tests; however, the difference is too small to 150 IData from Grnax & single-stage testing)
4~ •
be statistically significant. There are some very low G values that
Q
were determined from the testing of Specimens M-101 and 102 at 140 ~

the low confining pressure of 10 kPa. These values probably resulted 300 kPa ~

from improper seating between the top platen and the top of the 120
specimen. Once initial shakedown was completed, the results from
IE
further Gmax determinations for these specimens were consistent o 100
with the rest of the test data shown in Fig. 3. The following empirical o~ 100 kPa
equation closely approximates the test data presented in Fig. 3 ~ go
Gma x ----[523/(0.3 4- 0.7e2)]P°'S2((r6)0"48 (4) .,g, o o¶~
~ 60
where v o• A~ o

40 Hollow cylindrical Solid

Gmax ~- shear modulus at very low strain, in the same units as P , specimen specimen ~ 50 kPa ~
and ~r~, o M 101 ~ M-109 • M-106 • M-116
o M-102 ~ M410 • M-107 • Ml17
e = void ratio, 20 o M-103 ~M4H • M - t 1 4 ~ M-|18
P , = atmospheric pressure, and ~ M-i04 ~ M-H2
Note: Test data of Md03 at larger strain were not included
v M-108 e M-113
% ---- mean effective confining stress. J
10 4 lO 3 2 ~ 10 .2 ~ s 10 I
Test results on shear modulus versus average shear strain ampli- SHEAR STRAIN AMPLffUOE, Y [percent]
tude from Gma x and single-stage testing are shown in Fig. 4 for con-
fining pressures at 50, 100, and 300 kPa. The effect of confining FIG. 4--Shear modulus versus shear strain amplitude f o r confining pres~
sures at 50, I00. and 300 kPa ffrom single-stage and Gmax testing).
pressure on shear modulus is similar to that observed in Fig. 3, that
is, the higher the confining pressure, the higher the shear modulus.
Note that at larger shear strains the specimen type (solid or hollow) appeared to be slightly higher at 2~ _< 1 0 - 3 % , there is no significant
has no notieeable effect on the shear modulus. difference between measurements from solid and hollow specimens
Damping ratios calculated for the specimens tested at very small taken at larger shear strain amplitudes. Figure 7 shows the ranges o[
average shear strain amplitudes (average shear strain of 1 0 - 3 % or the test data plotted in Fig. 6 for various confining pressures. As
less) are plotted in Fig. 5 as a function of confining pressure. Several anticipated, damping ratios decrease with increasing confining
observations can be made from this figure: (1) the damping ratio at pressure throughout the range of the shear strain amplitudes
3' - 1 0 - 3 % is equal to or less than 1% throughout the range of the studied. For instance, for 3, of 4 × 1 0 - 2 % , the average damping
confining pressures used in the tests; (2) a trend for the damping ratio is approximately 6% for a o = 50 kPa and approximately 2%
ratio to decrease with increasing confining pressure is evident from for a o = 300 kPa.
the data; and (3) damping ratios obtained from the hollow cylindri- The shear modulus as a function of shear strain amplitude as de-
cal specimens tend to be slightly higher than those obtained from termined from multistage testing for confining pressures of 100 and
the solid specimens. Figures 6a, b, and c show plots of damping 300 kPa is given in Fig. 8. The trend of the test data is similar to that
ratio versus 3' for confining pressures of 50, 100, and 300 kPa, re- for single-stage testing shown in Fig. 4. In Figs. 9a and b the range
spectively. Although damping ratios for hollow cylindrical specimens of the data from multistage testing illustrated in Fig. 8 is compared
 CHUNG ET AL ON RESONANT COLUMN TESTING 65
2.0 I I
10 I ' ' I
Monterey NP. 0 sand
Or : 60%, Tdry = 1577 kg/m 3 Monterey No. 0 sand
8 Dr = 60% Tdry : 1577 kg/m3
1.0 ~o [Data from single-state and
= 0 o
% 6 Grnaa testinl]
o 0 / /
< 0.5 o ~ 4 Cro = 50 kPa ////
0
----=lOOkPa ~ ~ / ; I . / .
O
=N• ~ ei o
2 .... =300 kPa -'~"".,;"
v ~ .4
~ 0,2 t 0 ~ .... . . . . . . i
10 .4 2 5 10-3 2 5 10 .2 2 5 10-1

STItAflll AMPLITUDE, ")/(percent)

0.1 I 1 J I J
;O 20 50 lOO 200 500 IOOO FIG. 7--Range of damping ratio versus shear strain amplitude for vari-
ous confining pressures {from single-stage and Gin.x testing).
CONFINING PRESSURE, o~ {kPa)

FIG, 5--Damping ratio versus confining pressure at shear strain ampli-

tude less than 10-3%. 160 I i r r I I I I
Mooterey No. 0 sand
Dr ~ 00%, 7dry = 1577 k g / m
t60 IDzto from multi-stage testing]
• Am 6w

tOO
I T + ~ F F .......... r

-- 8 Monterey NO 0~rnd
o~ : 300ira ~
Or = 60%. ~dry = 1577 kg/m 3 e
( ~ = 50 kPa
~< 6
IOata from G~x and singiestage testin£1 ;oo
I
4 Hoilow cylindocal Solid ,Z ~ , • e, * , o , * . o , * o ,v.o" ~ o ",*o ,,~
specimen specimen
M-104 • M106 HOItow cylindrical Solid v v ~"
2 M 113 • M-107 sPecimen specimen v %,
• ~-H4 i~. 6O v~
? M-108 A M-IO6 a~ : 100 kPa
0 o M-n2 • M-167
o M-113 v M-114
5 lO 3 2 10 z 2 s tO 40 M-116
SHEAR STRAIN AMPLITUOE, ~[perceotl

U- " r [ .....~ [ 20 .J I L I L I ~ I
10 4 2 5 10 3 2 5 10 .2 2 5 T0-1

8 Monterey No 0 sand SHEAR STRAIN AMPLITUDE. T (percentJ

Dr : 60%, Tory : i577 kg/m s
o~ : 100 kPa FIG. 8--Shear modulus versus shear stra& amplitude for confining pres-
tOata from Grnax and single-stage testingl sures at 100 and 300 kPa (from multistage testing),
0
4 Hollow cylindrica~ Solid o
0
specimen specimen e to the range of data from Fig. 4 for Gmax and single-stage testing.
o M-101 • M-116 The multistage tests seem to cause a slight increase in shear modu-
2 o M-102
lus, which does not exceed 5% over most of the range of the tests.
~3
0 I
The slight increase in shear modulus caused by multistage testing is
104 2 5 10 3 2 ~ ~0 2 2 5 I0 I attributed by the authors to fabric changes and densification caused
SHEAR STRA;N AMPLITUDE, 7 [percentj
by the application of many cycles of shear strain.
10 The effect of multistage testing on the damping ratio is shown in
Monterey No. 0 sanU
Figs. 10 and 11. Figure 10 is a plot of the data obtained from multi-
8 stage testing, and Fig. 11 compares the ranges of damping ratios
Dr : 60%, T~ry 1577 kg..m3
% 300 kPa obtained from single-stage and multistage testing. Note that multi-
< 6 IData from Gma= and single stage testingJ
stage testing tends to reduce the damping ratio; the effect is much
Hollow cylindr ical Solid more pronounced at the 100-kPa confining pressure, where a 50%
4 specimen specimen
z reduction occurred at the larger shear strain amplitude. The effect
M 109 " M fit
M 710 * M-t18 tends to disappear at the 300 kPa confining pressure.
2 M-111 No change of specimen height was observed from the LVDT mea-
O i
surements during all the Gma x determinations. Specimen height
L I
10 2 5 10 3 1 5 101 2 5 I0 ~ changes during the testing at larger shear strain amplitudes was
SHEAR STRAIN AMPLITUDE. ~/ ]percentl very small. In the single-stage testing, the maximum observed
Icl
height change was 0.1% of the original specimen height. Maximum
FIG. 6--Damping ratio versus shear strain amplitude for confining pres- change of specimen height during any one stage in the multistage
sures at 50, 100, and 300 kPa (from single-stage and Gmax testing). testing was 0.5% of the original specimen height, or about half of
66 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

120 J 10 i i
Monterey No. 0 sand Monterey No. O sand
100 Dr : 60%, ~/dry = 1577 kg/m 3 8 Dr = 60% ~ r y - - 1577 kg/m 3
O~ : t00 kPa o~ : 100 kPa
~ 60 6
Data from single-stage and Gmax testing / /
N 4 /
N 60 - - D a t a from Multi-stage testing with / _ _
Data from single-stage and Gmax testing previous testing at " 0 = 50 kPa, / ///
~ 4o ~ " ~ Data from multi-stage testing with previous testing ~2
at -o - 50 kPa, ~/max -~ 5 × 10-2%
20 0
10 .4 2 5 10.3 2 5 10 ,2 2 5 101 10-4 5 10 ~ 2 ~ I0 2 2 5 |0-!
SHEER STRAIN AMPLITUDE. "~ Ipercentl
SHEAR STRAIN AMPLITUDE, ~"[percent)
[a)
[a)
10 - -
180 Monterey No. 0 sand
Monterey No. 0 sand .o 8 Dr : 60%, ~/dry 1577 kg/m 3
Dr = 60%, "/dry = 1577 kg/m3 c~ O~= 300 kPa
o ~ = 300 kPa
0
- - Data from single-stage and Gmax testing
- 140
~4 ---- Data from multi-stage testing with previous testing
at .o - 50 and 100 kPa, ~max ~ 5 × 10-2%
120
~E
Data from ~
c~
100 - - - - Data from multi-stage testing with previous testing
0
at ~o = 50 and 100 kPa, ~max ~- 5 × 10-2%
10 4 2 5 lO 3 2 5 lO 2 2 5 10 ~
80 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
SHEAR STRAIN AMPLITUDE. ~ Ipercentj
10-4 2 5 t0 +3 2 5 10"2 2 5 10-!
SHEAR STRAIN AMPLITUDE, ")/ (percentl FIG. ll--Comparison of damping ratio versus shear strain amplitude
between single-stage and G ~ , x testing and multistage testing.

FIG, 9--Comparison of shear modulus versus shear strain amplitude be-

tween single-stage and G max testing and multistage testing. the magnitude observed during the single-stage testing. The total
axial strain that occurred in any test, which is the sum of the speci-
men height change caused by confining pressure and the height
change induced by the strain cycles in all cases, was less than 0.4%.

Comparison with Other Studies

In Fig. 12 the test data obtained in this test series was compared
Monterey No, 0 sand
8
Dr = 60% 7d~y 1577 kg/m 3
with other data available for Monterey No. 0 sand. The dashed and
E o~ - 100 kPa
tData from muRi-stage testing I
500 ] ~ i t i
Hollow cylindrical Solid
4 specimen specimen Monterey NO. 0 sand
o M-113 • M-106 Or = 60%, ~/dry = 1577 kg/m3
• M107 lk
eA
2 • Ml14
• le 200 ~ " ~
0 ~ • ~ v~o~ TA~ e • ~ evADe ~ e

10 4 2 5 lO "3 2 5 10 "2 2 5 10 ~
.
SHEAR STRAINAMPLITUDE,~ Ipercentl
[al ,oo .

[ I

Monterey No. 0 sand

8
Pr : 60% ")/dry: 1577 kg/m 3
a~ = 300 kPa
• ~>~" _ -- ~ Range and upper and lower standard error
IData from moRi-stage testing}
~4 ----- of estimate from preliminary ASTM Round
Hoflow cylindrical Solid o Robin Test Program IOrnevich. Ref 111, 1979
specimen specimen o ~ Data from strain-controlled dynamic triaxiat
M-112 A M-106 20 -o testing [Dobry, et al. Ref 12), 1982
o M-113 • M-107
For other symbols, refer to Figure 4
2
• M-114
'~ M-116 ~ e
,i
10 J I L ~ L
O I _____ ~ 4 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000
104 2 5 10"3 2 10~2 2 5 10~ CONFININGPRESSURE,( ~ fkPaJ
SHEAR STRAINAMPLITUDE,~+ /percentJ
FIG. 12--Maximum shear modulus versus confining pressure; test data
FIG, lO--Damping ratio versus shear strain amplitude for confining compared with preliminary A S T M round robin and strain-controlled dy-
pressures at 100 and 300 kPa (from multistage testing). namic triaxial test results.
 CHUNG ET AL ON RESONANT COLUMN TESTING 67

dash-dotted lines in the figure show the upper and lower standard
error of estimate, and the upper and lower range, respectively, for
the preliminary test data from the ASTM round robin program [11].
Note that the NBS test data are at the lower boundary of the range of
the round robin test results. However, two of the nine sets of test
data produced in the round robin program yielded results that are
very close to the NBS results. Three potentially significant differ-
ences between the NBS and the round robin tests are (1) that the
average relative density of the NBS specimens was approximately
60% while that of the ASTM specimens was approximately 62%
(this could account for a difference in G of approximately 1.5%; (2)
that the NBS specimens were prepared in layers while the ASTM
specimens were prepared by another method (this may affect the
uniformity, as well as the fabric of the specimens); and (3) that all
the test specimens in the ASTM program were solid cylinders of var-
ious sizes.
The solid line in Fig. 12 connects test points obtained by Dobry et al
[12] in cyclic triaxial tests. The specimens used by Dory et al were
prepared in the same manner as the NBS specimen, that is, the
method of "undercompaction" was used for specimen preparation.
Potentially significant differences between the tests by Dobry et al
and the tests reported herein are (1) the mode of cyclic loading (com-
pressive versus torsional) and the number of cycles applied (up to
300 cycles by Dobry et al, at least 12 000 in the NBS tests); (2) the
rate of load application (1 Hz in the triaxial tests and over 100 Hz in
the resonant column tests); (3) the fact that the triaxial tests were
performed on saturated undrained specimens where volume change
was inhibited while the tests reported herein were performed on dry
specimens; and (4) the fact that in the triaxial test G was calculated
assuming a value of 0.5 for Poisson's ratio while the resonant column
test provided a direct measurement of the shear modulus.
In Fig. 13 the Gmax test data are plotted together with plots of
equations developed by Hardin [4] and Hardin and Drnevich [8].
Hardin's equations, which were developed from test data on round-
grained Ottawa sand, predict Gmax values close to those measured in
the tests. The Hardin-Drnevich equation, which was derived from
data on a variety of soils, predicts somewhat higher values of Graax.
Figure 14 shows a comparison of the test data with expressions
for normalized Gmax developed by Iwasaki and Tatsuoka (at 3, ----
10-3%) [10] and Tatsuoka et al (at 3' ----10-3%) [18]. Both of these
equations were developed from ten types of clean sand including
round, subangular, and angular particles. Iwasaki's equation was
developed from hollow cylindrical specimen tests and Tatsuoka's
equation from solid cylindrical specimen tests. Note that Iwasaki's
equation gives higher values of Gmax, indicating that the values of
Gmax calculated by Iwasaki on the basis of hollow cylinder tests
were higher than those calculated on the basis of solid cylinder tests.
This observation is not confirmed by the NBS tests where there was
no significant difference between Gmax values calculated from hol-
low and solid cylindrical specimen tests. Note also that Tatsuoka's
values for Gmax are very close to the values obtained in this study.
Figure 15 shows a comparison between the NBS test results and
round robin tests conducted by the Corps of Engineers Waterway
Experiment Station (WES) on Reid-Bedford model sand [19]. The
plot is normalized with respect to the void ratio. Note that the NBS
tests fall within the range of the average ___1 standard deviation re-
ported for the WES data. Figure 16 shows a comparison between
the NBS data and data from dynamic triaxial testing by Kokusho
[13] and Dobry et al [12]. Note the Kokusho's results are very close
to those by Dobry et al and that the NBS values from resonant col-
umn tests are consistently lower than those developed by Kokusho
and Dobry et al from triaxial tests.
Figure 17 shows a comparison between damping ratio measured
at 3' -< 10-3% and those reported in the ASTM round robin proj-
ect. The solid line in the figure shows the average of the ASTM
data, and the broken lines show average + 1 standard deviation.
The data points used for deriving the lines from the ASTM program
are not the actual points reported but are calculated from least
square best fit lines for damping versus average shear strain ampli-
tude for the data submitted by the participating laboratories. This
approach, according to Drnevich [ll], is necessary because accurate

500
50O0 I I I I /

t2.973-e 2 1/2
G :1230 ~ [o~
~-~ o~&G in psJ,"Y~ 10 4 ~, / "
200 (Hardin, Ornevich, 1972) ~ .~ " " 2000 Average of experimental data from
resonant cokJmn testing on hoik)w
cylindrical specimens, "Y = 10.5 / /
( . , , , . i L 7,tsuo.. Ref ,ol ~977 ~ . . . / . ~ ' ~ ,e
100 ~ ' r ~ " 132.17 - 14,8e} 2. ,,I,2

.,-~,-~ O~ in psf -~ 2000 psf

~ - specimens specimens
50 ~ ~
/~'~" G in psi
/ ~ • M-107 0 M-102
/...S'~.."~ (22s2 ,00nJ ~ , ~ v-- 2s~ 10-~ ^ ~ v M-n4 0M-103
~ ~_0,~" ~ I, ~l {Hardin, 1905I
':urO ~ , o~ in psf < 2000 psf k,a v L--A~imental data • M-117 ~7M-lO8
200 o from resonant column testing 4 M-118 N M-109
(o G in psi 0 on solid specimens, 7= 10.5 <1 M-110
| ~ Refer to Figure 4
| T-- 2,5 × tO-- for Legend o (Tatsuoka et al, Nor 19~ 1979 D M-111
M-I16
10| ~ IHardin 19651 I I I 100~ L I J I
0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0
10 20 50 100 200 500 1000
CONFINING PRESSURE, % [kg/cm21
CONFINING PRESSURE, o0 IkPal

FIG. 13--Maximum shear modulus versus coJ(finhzg pressure: test data FIG. 14--Normalized shear modulus versus confining pressure: test data
compared with empirical equations. compared with results by Iwasaki and Tatsuoka [18].
68 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

5000 LO 1 t [ t I

Monterey No. 0 sand Monterey No, 0 sand ___ Average± one standard deviatio~
Or = 60% ~'ery= 1.577 kg/m3 Range of average Or = 60%, 2%y ~ t577 kg/rn 3 from ASTM round robin i~ogvam,1/79
+_one standard deviation - - - /
Solid $pecimans i t.0
A M-lOG /~)~
• M-197 o o
• M-114 ¢, ~ "
• M-116 ..~. ~ /
• M-117 z~ 0.5
lOOO o
• M-118 ""~ ~'i.*- 4
/
--,~ ~ " . ~ ~
_ . ,~, •
2 /
/ .) t/
0.2 ~ |
% / i/f
J
J

Open symbols are from WES round robin 0.1 I I ~ J "~ .I

resonant CM~nm testir~ en~RoilJ-Bed4enl 16 20 50 160 200 500 1066
Modal Sand. CONFINING PRESSURE, ~x~ [kPa/
7dry = 1600 kg/m 3 (Sknglundet al, Ref 20) 1976
FIG. 17--Damping ratio w,rsus confining pressure at shear strain ampli-
0,t LO 10,0 tudes less than 10-3%; test data compared with preliminary A S T M round
CONFiNiNG PRESSURE,no [kg/cm21 robin test results.

FIG. IS--Normalized shear modulus versus confining pressure; test data

compared with results of HIES round robin program, Skoglund et al (19].
from 10- 4 to 5 × 10-2%. The following conclusions can be drawn
from the test results.
I I I I I
1. The shear modulus at small strain Gma× is closely predicted by
Eq 4.
- - Data from stress-controlled dynamic triaxial
testing (Kokusko, Ref 13], 1980 "/- 10 .5
2. The type of specimen used (solid or hollow cylinder) had no
..... Data from strain-controlled dynamic triaxial significant effect on the shear moduli and damping ratios calculated
2000
testinI [Dobry nt al, Ref 12), 1982 3/- 10.5 from the results, except that a very low strain amplitudes 7 -
10-3%. The shear moduli of the hollow specimens tended to be
slightly lower and the damping ratios slightly higher.
3. The use of a multistage testing technique, where specimens
Ii
, I were tested up to a strain amplitude of 5 X 10-2% at a confining
500 Solid specimens pressure of 50 kPa, and then retested in the same manner at confin-
A M-106 ing pressures of 100 mad 300 kPa had the general effect of slightly
-~ T M-114
increasingthe shear modulus at the 100 and 300 kPa confining pres-
e M-116 sures (the maximum increase did not exceed 5%). However, at the
• M-117
200 • M-118 100-kPa confining pressure specimens tested by the multistage tech-
nique had significantly smaller damping ratios than those obtained
from single-stage tests. At the 300-kPa confining pressure there was
100 I I t I l no significant difference between the damping obtained from
0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10,0 single-stage and multistage tests.
CONFINING PRESSURE, o~ [kR/cm21 4. Shear moduli and damping ratios obtained in this program
agreed well with other available data.
FIG. 16--Normalized shear modulus versus confining pressure; test data
compared with stress- and strain-controlled dynamic" triaxial test results. The test results demonstrate that for the sand and the range of
strain amplitudes and confining pressures used in this test program,
solid cylindrical specimens and multistage tests could be used to ob-
measurement of the damping ratio is extremely difficult when the tain shear moduli, and solid cylindrical specimens and single-stage
magnitude of the damping ratio is less than 1°7o. Note that the NBS tests could be used to obtain damping ratios. The substitution of
damping ratio measurements fall between the lines of average _+1 hollow cylindrical specimens and single-stage testing would not sig-
standard deviation reported in the ASTM program. nificantly affect the results. Further tests should be conducted to as-
certain whether this latter conclusion is also valid for other types of
granular soil.
Conclusions
Sixteen torsional resonant column tests were performed on Mon-
References
terey No. 0 sand of 60% relative density under confining pressures
ranging from 10 to 300 kPa. Six of the tests were solid cylinder tests, [I] Iida, K., "The Velocity of Elastic Waves in Sands," Bulletin of the
and ten were hollow cylinder tests. Fifteen of the tests were on dry Earthquake Research Institute, Tokyo Imperial University, Vol. 16,
1938, pp. 131-144.
specimens compacted by dry tapping, and one test was on a moist [2] Iida, K., "On the Elastic Properties of Soil, Particularlyin Relationto
specimen compacted by moist tamping. Shear moduli and damping Its Water Content," Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute,
ratios were determined for cyclic shear strain amplitudes ranging Tokyo Imperial University,Vol. 18, 1940, pp. 657-690.

[3] Hardin, B. O. and Richart, F. E., Jr., "Elastic Wave Velocities in
Granular Soils," Journal of the Soil Mechan&s and Foundations Divi-
sion, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 89,
No. SM1, Feb. 1963, pp. 33-65.
[4] Hardin, B. O., "Dynamic Versus Static Shear Modulus for Dr3,
Sand," Materials Research & Standards, May 1965, pp. 231-235.
[5] Hardin, B. O. and Black, W. L., "Vibration Modulus of Normally
Consolidated Clay," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.
94, No. SM2, March 1968, pp. 353-369.
[6] Drnevich, V. P. and Richart, F. E., Jr., "Dynamic Prestraining of Dry
Sands," Journal oj' the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Pro-
ceedh~gs of the American Soc&ty of Civil Engineers, Vol. 96, No. SM2,
March 1970, pp. 451-469.
[7] Drnevich, V. P., "Effects of Strain History on the Dynamic Properties
of Solids," PhD. thesis, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, MI,
MI, 1967.
[8] Hardin, B. O. and Drnevich, V. P., "Shear Modulus and Damping in
Soils: Design Equations and Curves," Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the American Society of
Civil Engineers, Vol. 98, No. SM7, July 1972, pp. 667-692.
[9] Hardin, B. O., "The Nature of Stress-Strain Behavior for Soils," Pro-
ceedings of the Geotechnieal Division Specialty Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, American Soc&ty of Civil En-
gineers, Pasadena, CA, June 1978, pp. 3-90.
[10] lwasaki, T. and Tatsuoka, F., "Effects of Grain Size and Grading on
Dynamic Shear Moduli of Sands," Soils and Foundations, Vol. 17,
No. 3, Sept. 1977, pp. 19-35.
[11] Drnevich, V. P., Draft Report of the Initial ASTM Resonant Column
Round Robin Testing Program, 1979, 20 pp.
CHUNG ET AL ON RESONANT COLUMN TESTING 69
[12] Dobry, R., Ladd, R. S., Yokel, F. Y., Chung, R. M., and Powell, D.,
"Prediction of Pore Water Pressure Buildup and Liquefaction of
Sands During Earthquakes by the Cyclic Strain Method," Building
Science Series 128, National Bureau of Standards, March 1982, 150 p.
[13] Kokusho, T., "Cyclic Triaxial Test of Dynamic Soil Properties for
Wide Strain Range," Soils and Foundations, Vol. 20, No. 2, June
1980, pp. 45-60.
[14] Drnevich, V. P., Hardin, B. O., and Shippy, D. J., "Modulus and
Damping of Soils by the Resonant Column Method," Dynamic Geo-
technical Testing, STP 654, American Society for Testing and Mate-
rials, Philadelphia, 1978, pp. 91-125.
[15] Mulilis, J. P., Chan, C. K., and Seed, H. B., "The Effects of Method
of Sample Preparation on the Cyclic Stress-Strain Behavior of Sands,"
Report EERC 75-18, EERC, University of California, Berkeley, CA,
July 1975.
[16] Ladd, R. S., "Preparing Test Specimens Using Undereompaetion,"
Geoteehnical Testing Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, March 1978, pp. 16-23.
[17] Chung, R. M. and Yokel, F. Y., "Contribution tothe ASTM Resonant
Column Round Robin Testing Program," NBSIR 82-2568, National
Bureau of Standards, Aug. 1982.
[18] Tatsuoka, F., lwasaki, T., Yoshida, S., Fukushima, S., and Sudo,
H., "Shear Modulus and Damping by Drained Tests on Clean Sand
Specimens Reconstituted by Various Methods," Soils and Founda-
tions, Vol. 19, No. 1, March 1979, pp. 39-54.
[19] Skoglund, G. R., Marcuson, W. F., and Cunny, R. W., "Evaluation
of Resonant Column Test Device," Journal of the Geotechnical Engi-
neering Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, Vol. 102, No. GT 11, Nov. 1976, pp. 1147-1158.