Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107557

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Experimental investigation and empirical model on damping properties of

rock under multistage cyclic loading
Beibei Yang a, Mingming He a, b, *, Zhiqiang Zhang a, b, Jiwei Zhu a, c, Yunsheng Chen b
a
State Key Laboratory of Eco-hydraulics in Northwest Arid Region, Xi’an University of Technology, 710048, China
b
Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Loess Mechanics and Engineering, Xi’an University of Technology, 710048, China
c
Research Center of Eco-hydraulics and Sustainable Development, The New Style Think Tank of Shaanxi Universities, Xi’an, 710048, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio of rock are the main indicators that reflect the dynamic char­
Damping ratio. dynamic shear modulus. acteristics of rock masses under seismic and dynamic action. The multistage cyclic triaxial compression test is
variable amplitude. same amplitude. shear performed on granite and red sandstone under different confining pressures with two stress paths. To reasonably
strain
describe the dynamic characteristics of rock, a modified Hardin hyperbolic model is proposed to describe the
backbone curve. The relationship between the dynamic shear modulus, damping ratio and cyclic shear strain is
analysed under different confining pressure conditions with variable and same amplitude. Furthermore, an
empirical formula is established for estimating the dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio. The obtained
results show that with increasing shear strain, the damping ratio of red sandstone and granite decreases and then
increases under the condition of variable amplitude. When the shear strain is constant, the damping ratio of red
sandstone and granite is less affected by the confining pressure. Under the same amplitude conditions, as the
shear strain increases, the dynamic shear modulus under different confining pressures shows an increasing trend.
The two established empirical formulas can be used to predict the dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio
under multistage cyclic loading. This has important reference significance for studying the dynamic character­
istics of rock.

1. Introduction dynamic elastic modulus of argillaceous siltstone with dynamic stress

Earthquakes are the number one natural disaster. After a strong
earthquake occurs, in addition to direct casualties and building damage,
it may also trigger a series of other geological disasters or secondary
disasters. The dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio of the rock
mass are the main indicators that reflect the stress–strain characteristics
of the rock mass under seismic dynamic action and are also important
parameters for seismic response analysis and site safety evaluation.
Studying the dynamic characteristics of rocks under cyclic loading has
important theoretical significance and practical value.
Currently, many scholars [1–10] have studied the strength, defor­
mation characteristics, fatigue damage and dynamic response of rocks
under cyclic loading. It is found that the stress amplitude has an
important influence on the damping characteristics. Nish et al. [11]
obtained the relationship between the dynamic shear modulus of rock
and the damping ratio and confining pressure through a dynamic test.
Liu et al. [12] obtained the variation law of the damping ratio and
amplitude, strain amplitude and cycle times through uniaxial cyclic
loading and unloading tests of argillaceous siltstone. Tutuncu et al. [13]
studied the strength, deformation, damping characteristics, hysteresis
curve, fatigue damage and dynamic response of rocks under cyclic
loading. Liu et al. [14] obtained the damping ratio and damping coef­
ficient of sandstone and mudstone by uniaxial compression cyclic testing
in the laboratory and analysed the variation law of the hysteresis loop
area, energy dissipation, damping ratio and damping coefficient under
different test conditions. Xiao et al. [15] performed cyclic loading and
unloading tests and studied the hysteresis and damping effect of rock.
Zhu et al. [16] obtained the damping parameters of rock through cyclic
load tests and discussed the damping characteristics. Huang [17] studied
the damping parameters of rock using the method of self-vibration and
obtained the relationship between the damping coefficient of rock and
the load frequency and load stress. Currently, most scholars study the
damping characteristics of rocks by means of stress paths and rarely
analyse them from the perspective of strain [18–20]. Scholars who

* Corresponding author. State Key Laboratory of Eco-hydraulics in Northwest Arid Region, Xi’an University of Technology, 710048, China.
E-mail address: hemingming@xaut.edu.cn (M. He).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107557
Received 30 March 2021; Received in revised form 26 April 2022; Accepted 16 September 2022
Available online 24 September 2022
0267-7261/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Yang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107557

analyse strain generally use low strain (10− 5–10− 8) and high strain
(10− 2–10− 4), and the strain range used in this study is 0.001–0.02. In
recent years, with the construction of deep buried underground caverns,
the excavation of tunnels in high stress areas and the exploitation of
deep mineral deposits, it is urgent to reveal the influence of confining
pressure and loading cycles on rock damping parameters and dynamic
parameters, which can be used as the basis for the seismic design of
underground engineering.
In this study, the influence of two strain paths on the evolution
characteristics of the damping ratio and dynamic shear modulus under
different confining pressures are studied by cyclic triaxial loading. The
relationship between the dynamic shear modulus, damping ratio and
shear strain of red sandstone and granite under different strain ampli­
tude, same strain amplitude and confining pressures are discussed. An
empirical model is proposed to estimate the relationship between the
dynamic shear modulus, damping ratio and shear strain.

2. Test Fig. 2. Sample of red sandstone and granite.

2.1. Test instrument
The test equipment used in the triaxial cycle test in this study is the
WDT-1500 multifunctional material testing machine [21], which can
perform uniaxial and triaxial compression, shear, fatigue and creep tests
under complex stress. The parameters of the testing machine are as
follows: the axial deformation range is 0–10 mm, the circumferential
deformation range is 0–5 mm, the dynamic test force is 1000 kN, the
confining pressure is 80 MPa, the frequency is 0–10 Hz, and the defor­
mation is 0–0.5 mm. As shown in Fig. 1.
2.2. Specimen preparation and cyclic loading test
Permian red sandstone and Cretaceous granite were used for this test
from Xi’an, Shaanxi Province, as shown in Fig. 2. Red sandstone is a
typical sedimentary rock that is formed by weathering and denudation
of the Earth’s surface and then transporting and depositing it. Red
sandstone is mainly formed by the cementation of sandy particles and
cement. Granite is the product of magmatic activity and is an igneous
rock. Rock samples are taken from the same strata to ensure the ho­
mogeneity of the samples. According to the ISRM Standard [22], the
sample is processed into a φ50 × 100 cylindrical standard sample, the
unparallelism error of the end of the sample is less than 0.005 mm, and
the unevenness error of the section is less than 0.02 mm; the vertical
diameter error of the side of the sample is less than 0.3 mm.
This test is divided into two cyclic loading tests with different loading
methods: a variable amplitude grading cyclic loading test and the same
amplitude multistage cyclic loading test. The loading rate of the two
multistage cyclic loading tests is 0.5 mm/min, and the frequency is 0.2
Hz.
(1) Variable amplitude grading cyclic loading: first set the upper
strain limit of 0.5 for red sandstone without changing the lower limit of
strain and increase the upper limit of strain 0.1 without changing the
lower limit of strain after 20 cycles of loading at this level; for granite,
setting the upper limit of strain 0.1 does not change the lower limit of
strain at the same time. After 20 cycles of loading at this level, the upper
limit of strain is increased by 0.1 without changing the lower limit of
strain. Load in this way until the specimen is broken. (2) The same
amplitude multistage cyclic loading: the upper limit of the strain of red
sandstone is 0.5, and the upper limit of the strain of granite is 0.1. After
the first cyclic loading for 20 times, the upper limit and lower limit of
strain are increased by 0.1 at the same time to enter the next cyclic
loading mode until the specimen is broken. The two loading methods are
shown in Figs. 3 and 4. In this way, the influence of the two loading
methods on the mechanical parameters of the rock is studied.
3. Determination of the dynamic shear modulus and damping
ratio
According to the cyclic load test, the axial cyclic stress σ d and the
axial cyclic strainεd are obtained from the collected data. The cyclic
shear stress τd and the cyclic shear strain γ d can be calculated according
to the following formulas:

Fig. 1. WDT-1500 multipurpose material testing machine. Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of variable amplitude grading cyclic loading.

2
B. Yang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107557

γd
τd = (4)
a + bγd

where a and b are material constants, a>0 and b > 0.

The Hardin model cannot reflect the stress–strain relationship of rock
and directly affects the maximum dynamic shear modulus and the ul­
timate cyclic shear stress. Therefore, the Hardin hyperbolic model is
modified as follows:
γd
τd = 1 (5)
(ac + bc γcd )c

where a, b and c are material constants, a > 0, b > 0 and c > 0. Clearly,
when c is 1, the modified Hardin model can degenerate into the Hardin
model.
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of the same amplitude grading cycle loading. To describe the relationship between the dynamic shear modulus and
cyclic shear strain of the rock under cyclic loading, the dynamic shear
σd modulus Gd can be calculated according to the following equation:
τd = γd = εd (1 + μ) (1)
2 τd 1
Gd = = 1 (6)
γd (ac + bc γcd )c
where σ d is the axial cyclic stress, εd is the axial cyclic strain, and μ is the
dynamic Poisson’s ratio. Especially when γd is close to 0, the maximum dynamic shear
Fig. 5 shows the typical hysteretic loop curve of cyclic shear stress modulus can be calculated by Equation (7). When γd is close to + ∞, the
and cyclic shear strain of sand, which is applied to rock based on the amplitude of the limit cyclic shear stress can be calculated by Equation
hysteretic loop curve of soil. The average slope of the ring is defined as (8) as follows:
the dynamic shear modulus Gd ; therefore, the dynamic shear modulus
1
can be calculated by the following equation: Gdmax = Gd |γ d→0 = (7)
a
τd
Gd = (2) 1
γd τdult = τd |γd→+∞ = (8)
b
where τd is the amplitude of cyclic shear stress, and γd is the amplitude of
cyclic shear strain. where Gdmax is the maximum dynamic shear modulus, and τdult is the
The damping ratio λ of the rock under cyclic loading can be calcu­ ultimate cyclic shear stress.
lated by the following formula: The amplitude of the reference cyclic shear strain can be calculated
from the following equation:
S
λ= (3) τdult a
4πSΔ γ dr = = (9)
Gdmax b
where S is the area of the hysteresis loop, and SΔ is the area of triangle The relationship between the dynamic shear modulus and cyclic
OAB. shear strain is shown in the following equation:
Hardin and Drnevich [23,24] used the hyperbolic model to describe
the relationship between the cyclic shear stress and cyclic shear strain (i. Gd = [
Gdmax
(10)
( )c ]1c
e., backbone curves). The Hardin model is expressed as follows: 1 + γ d/γ
dr

As shown in Figs. 6 and 7, the curve of the experimental data and the
curve of the modified Hardin model are compared. The obtained results
show that the modified Hardin model is in good agreement with the
experimental data. This shows that the modified Hardin model can more
accurately predict the ultimate cyclic shear stress. Table 1 shows the
material constants a, b, and c of the modified Hardin model.

4. Experimental results and analysis

The important indices describing the dynamic characteristics of rock

and soil are the dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio. However,
the dynamic characteristics are not only related to its own properties but
also affected by different depths, confining pressures and external loads.
In this study, red sandstone and granite are taken as the research objects.
After graded cyclic loading, the effect of confining pressures on the
dynamic characteristic parameters of the rock is investigated.

4.1. Experimental study on the variable amplitude grading cycle

Fig. 8 shows the relationship between the shear strain and dynamic
Fig. 5. Typical hysteretic loop curves of cyclic shear stress and cyclic shear modulus of red sandstone and granite under different confining
shear strain. pressures. Fig. 8(a) shows that the shear strain of red sandstone has a

3
B. Yang et al.
Fig. 6. Relationship between cyclic shear strain and cyclic shear stress under variable amplitude.
Fig. 7. Relationship between cyclic shear strain and cyclic shear stress under the same amplitude.
Table 1
The material constants of the modified Hardin model.
Specimen type a b
Red sandstone under variable amplitude 0.0136 4.27E-08
variable amplitude variable amplitude
Granite under variable amplitude 0.0073 7.94E-06
Red sandstone at the same amplitude 0.0097 1.09E-10
Granite at the same amplitude 0.0044 1.26E-11
nonlinear relationship with the dynamic shear modulus. As the shear
strain increases, the dynamic shear modulus under different confining
pressures has an increasing trend. The dynamic shear modulus of granite
changes in the range of shear strain of 0.0011–0.0109. The dynamic
shear modulus of red sandstone changes in the range of shear strain of
0.0056–0.0199. Therefore, when the confining pressure remains un­
changed and the shear strain is 0.01, the dynamic shear modulus of
granite is greater than that of red sandstone. The dynamic shear modulus
of red sandstone at a confining pressure of 5 MPa and a shear strain of
0.015 is 6810 MPa. When the shear strain is constant, the dynamic shear
modulus under confining pressures of 10 MPa, 15 MPa, 20 MPa and 25
MPa increases by 0.56%, 1.62%, 3.01% and 4.08%, respectively,
compared to that at 5 MPa. In general, red sandstone and granite will
close the open pore space and some microcracks as the confining
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107557
pressure increases, and the strength and dynamic shear modulus of the
rock increase, but the confining pressure has little effect on the dynamic
shear modulus.
c Fig. 9 presents a graph showing the relationship between the
3.352 damping ratio and shear strain under stepped cyclic loading of different
strain amplitudes. The shear strain of red sandstone and granite has a
6.696 nonlinear relationship with the damping ratio. As the shear strain in­
2.148
1.873
creases, the damping ratio of red sandstone and granite first decreases
and then increases. In the initial stage of cyclic loading, the primary
fissures in the sample fully play the role of energy dissipation. As the
shear strain increases, these primary fissures are gradually compacted,
and the damping energy consumption between these defects decreases.
Therefore, the damping ratio in the initial state shows a decreasing
trend. As the shear strain increases, the damping energy dissipation
transforms into the expanded primary and secondary cracks opening
and closing under cyclic loading, and the damping ratio increases rela­
tively slowly in this process. Then, the primary and secondary cracks
greatly expand, the damping energy dissipation effect between the
cracks increases, and the damping ratio increases at this time.
When the shear strain remains constant, the damping ratio of granite
is greater than that of red sandstone. Granite and red sandstone have
different mineral compositions. Granite is connected by chemical bonds
to connect the crystal lattice, while red sandstone is cemented by sandy
particles. Because the energy consumed by chemical bond dislocation
4
B. Yang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107557

Fig. 8. Relationship between shear strain and dynamic shear modulus under different confining pressures.

Fig. 9. Relationship between shear strain and damping ratio under different confining pressures.

Fig. 10. Relationship between the dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio under different confining pressures.

5
B. Yang et al.
fracture is much greater than the energy consumption of the destruction
of the cement material, the energy consumption of granite to produce
enough deformation is greater than that of red sandstone [25]. In other
words, the damping ratio of granite under the same shear strain is
greater than that of red sandstone. Moreover, when the shear strain is
constant, as the confining pressure increases, the damping ratios of red
sandstone and granite slightly increase. Therefore, the damping ratio of
red sandstone and granite is less affected by the confining pressure.
Fig. 10 shows that the dynamic shear modulus of red sandstone and
granite has a nonlinear correlation with the damping ratio. As the dy­
namic shear modulus increases, the damping ratio generally decreases.
This can be explained by the fact that during cyclic loading, as the dy­
namic shear modulus increases, the specimen strength increases, and the
cracks are gradually compacted with the increase in specimen strength;
thus, the damping dissipation energy decreases. In addition, when the
dynamic shear modulus is 9000 MPa, the damping ratio of both red
sandstone and granite increases with increasing confining pressure.
Among them, the damping ratio of red sandstone under the confining
pressure of 25 MPa increased by 33.57% compared with that under the
confining pressure of 5 MPa. The damping ratio of granite under a
confining pressure of 25 MPa increased by 53.28% compared with that
under a confining pressure of 5 MPa.
4.2. Test under the same amplitude grading cycle condition
As shown in Fig. 11, the shear strain of red sandstone and granite has
a nonlinear relationship with the dynamic shear modulus. As the shear
strain increases, the dynamic shear modulus under different confining
pressures has an increasing trend. When the shear strain is constant, the
dynamic shear modulus increases with increasing confining pressure. As
the confining pressure increases, the open pores and some microcracks
inside the rock are closed, the strength of the rock increases, and the
dynamic shear modulus increases. The shear strain of granite increases
in the range of 0.0011–0.0097, and the shear strain of red sandstone
increases in the range of 0.0049–0.0175. When the confining pressure is
constant, the growth trend of the dynamic shear modulus of granite is
greater than that of red sandstone. This occurs due to the different
mineral compositions of granite and red sandstone. Granite is connected
by chemical bonds, which connect the crystal lattice, while red sand­
stone is cemented by sandy particles. The dynamic shear modulus de­
pends on the sliding friction force and occlusal force between particles.
As the content of sandy particles increases, the sliding friction and
occlusal friction between minerals decrease, and the dynamic shear
modulus also decreases. While granite is connected by chemical bonds,
Fig. 11. Relationship between shear strain and dynamic shear modulus under different confining pressures.
6
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107557
which connect the crystal lattice, there is no clay barrier between the
minerals, and the occlusal force is relatively large; thus, the dynamic
shear modulus is relatively large.
Fig. 12 shows the relationship between the damping ratio and the
shear strain under the same strain amplitude grading cyclic loading. As
shown in the figure, the damping ratio of red sandstone and granite
shows a nonlinear decreasing trend with increasing shear strain. In the
initial stage of cyclic loading, with increasing shear strain, the damping
ratio decreases, the primary and secondary cracks greatly expand, and
the damping energy dissipation between the cracks increases. At this
time, the damping ratio increases to a certain extent. The shear strain of
granite is in the range of 0.001–0.0097, and the shear strain of red
sandstone is in the range of 0.0056–0.0175; overall, the damping ratio of
granite is larger than that of red sandstone. In addition, taking granite as
an example, when the confining pressure is 5 MPa and the shear strain is
0.0048, the damping ratio of granite is 0.016. The damping ratios of
granite are 0.024, 0.030, 0.041, and 0.057 with increasing confining
pressure for the same shear strain. Thus, the confining pressure has a
promoting effect on the damping ratio.
As shown in Fig. 13, there is a nonlinear correlation between the
damping ratio of red sandstone and granite and the dynamic shear
modulus. As the dynamic shear modulus increases, the damping ratio
tends to decrease. The dynamic shear modulus of granite ranges from
10000 MPa to 30000 MPa, and the dynamic shear modulus of red
sandstone ranges from 8000 MPa to 12000 MPa. When the dynamic
shear modulus is 10000 MPa and the confining pressure is 20 MPa, the
corresponding damping ratio of granite is 0.064, and the corresponding
damping ratio of red sandstone is 0.0045. The damping ratio of granite is
much greater than that of red sandstone, which is caused by the dif­
ference in the structure of the two rocks.
5. Empirical model and verification
5.1. Empirical expression of the dynamic shear modulus
To predict the maximum dynamic shear modulus Gdmax , researchers
have formulated many empirical formulas, which are affected by various
factors, such as confining pressure, variable amplitude, and the same
amplitude [26–28]. Combined with the test data, the maximum dynamic
shear modulus Gdmax of red sandstone and granite can be expressed as a
function of variable amplitude, same amplitude and confining pressure,
and the formula is as follows:
Gdmax = G0 × gD (D) × gS (S) × gσ (σ 3 ) (11)
B. Yang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107557

Fig. 12. Relationship between shear strain and damping ratio under different confining pressures.

Fig. 13. Relationship between the dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio under different confining pressures.

Among them, G0 is the model parameter, and gD (D), gS (S), and (σ 3 ) amplitude, respectively, and σ 3 represents the confining pressure. Gdmax
are functions of variable amplitude, same amplitude and confining is the dynamic shear modulus, and σ3 and Gdmax are expressed in MPa.
pressure, respectively. According to Formula (11), the regression anal­ Table 2 predicts the relationship between the maximum shear
ysis of these data obtains the relevant expressions of the maximum dy­ modulus affected by the confining pressure, variable amplitude and the
namic shear modulus of red sandstone and granite, the confining same amplitude, as shown in Figs. 14 and 15. The obtained results show
pressure and the loading mode, as shown in Table 2. that the predicted maximum dynamic shear modulus shows a good
In the formula, D and S are expressed as variable amplitude and same linear relationship with the confining pressure, thus indicating that the
maximum dynamic shear modulus can be predicted from Table 2.
Table 2
Generally, the dynamic shear modulus is normalized with the
Relationship between the maximum dynamic shear modulus and the confining maximum dynamic shear modulus. Figs. 16 and 17 show the relation­
pressure and loading mode. ship between the normalized dynamic shear modulus and cyclic shear
strain. The obtained results show that there is a similar relationship
Loading Rock type Gdmax = − 5.47 + 3.26σ3 + 21.55D + R2
method 21.42σ3 D + 10.79D2
between the dynamic shear modulus and cyclic shear strain for red
sandstone and granite under different confining pressures, variable
Variable Red Gdmax = 109.10 − 0.58σ3 + 21.79D + 0.987
amplitudes and the same amplitude conditions. Regression analysis of
amplitude sandstone 4.45σ3 D + 20.77D2
Granite Gdmax = 109.10 − 0.58σ3 + 21.79D + 0.905
these data results in Eq. (12).
4.45σ3 D + 20.77D2 G
Same Red Gdmax = 11.90 − 2.52σ3 + 22.48S − 0.855 = ​ y0 + A1 e(− γd /t1 )
(12)
amplitude sandstone
Gdmax
2.27σ3 S + 21.13S2
Granite Gdmax = 162.80 + 6.53σ3 + 19.73S − 0.909
In the formula, G
Gdmax
is the normalized dynamic shear modulus, γ d is
3.62σ3 S + 24.81S2

7
B. Yang et al.
Fig. 14. Relationship between the maximum dynamic shear modulus and the
confining pressure under variable amplitudes.
Fig. 15. Relationship between the maximum dynamic shear modulus and the
confining pressure under the same amplitude.
Fig. 16. Relationship between shear strain and normalized dynamic shear modulus under variable amplitude.
8
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107557
the cyclic shear strain, y0, A1 and t1 are normalized parameters, and the
values are given in Table 3.
Substituting the expression obtained in Table 2 into Eq. (12), ac­
cording to the test results, Table 3 can predict the dynamic shear
modulus of red sandstone and granite.
5.2. Empirical expression of damping ratio
Figs. 9, 10, 12 and 13 show that the damping ratio is affected by
three factors: confining pressure, variable amplitude and the same
amplitude. Based on the test data, a similar empirical formula is pro­
posed to estimate the damping ratio.
λ1 = λ0 × gD (D) × gS (S) × gσ (σ 3 ) (13)
where λ0 is the model parameter, and gD (D), gS (S) and gσ (σ 3 ) are the
functions of variable amplitude, same amplitude and confining pressure,
respectively.
According to Eq. (13), regression analysis is performed on the data of
red sandstone and granite under different loading methods, and the
following equations are obtained, as shown in Table 4.
In the formula, D and S are, respectively, the variable and same
amplitudes, λ1 is the damping ratio, and σ 3 is expressed in MPa.
The damping ratio predicted in Table 4 is affected by the confining
pressure, variable amplitude and same amplitude, as shown in Figs. 18
and 19. The obtained results show that the predicted damping ratio has a
good linear relationship with the confining pressure.
Hardin and Drnevich [23,24] believe that the relationship between
the dynamic shear modulus and the damping ratio of sand is as follows:
( )
λ = f G/ (14)
Gdmax
Figs. 20 and 21 show the relationship between the normalized
damping ratio and cyclic shear strain. Therefore, the following re­
lationships can be established through regression analysis:
λ
= ​ y0 + A1 e(− γd /t1 )
(15)
λ1
In the formula, λ
λ1
is the normalized damping ratio, λd is the cyclic
shear strain, and A1 , y0, and t1 are the normalized parameters. See
Table 5 for the values.
Similarly, substituting Table 4 into Eq. (15), based on the test results,
the damping ratio of the rock can be predicted from the following
equation.
[ ]
λ = ​ λ1 y0 + A1 e(− γd /t1 ) (16)
B. Yang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107557

Fig. 17. Relationship between shear strain and normalized dynamic shear modulus under the same amplitude.

Table 3
Relationship between the dynamic shear modulus and confining pressure and
loading mode.
Loading Rock type G
method

Variable Red G = ( − 5.47 + 3.26σ3 + 21.55D + 21.42σ3 D +

amplitude sandstone 10.79D2 )[ − 0.555 + 0.310e(γd /0.010) ]
Granite G = (109.10 − 0.58σ3 + 21.79D + 4.45σ3 D +
20.77D2 )[ − 0.412 + 0.382e(γd /0.0078) ]
Same Red G = (11.90 − 2.52σ3 + 22.48S − 2.27σ3 S +
amplitude sandstone 21.13S2 )[ − 1.375 + 1.153e(γd /0.020) ]
Granite G = (162.80 + 6.53σ3 + 19.73S − 3.62σ3 S +
24.81S2 )[17.479 + 31.070e(− γd /0.127) ]

Table 4
Relationship between the damping ratio and confining pressure and loading
mode.
Loading Rock type λ1 R2 Fig. 18. Relationship between the damping ratio and confining pressure under
method variable amplitudes.
Variable Red λ1 = − 3.63 + 2.68σ3 + 24.19D − 0.982
amplitude sandstone 1.69σ3 D + 17.85D2
Granite λ1 = 0.13 + 7.76σ3 + 34.22D + 0.839
32.59σ3 D + 3.70D2
Same Red λ1 = 4.72 + 17.67σ3 + 30.53S + 0.977
amplitude sandstone 1.74σ3 S + 6.86S2
Granite λ1 = 0.02 + 18.30σ3 + 10.85S + 0.900
35.38σ3 S + 0.81S2

6. Discussion

Engineering rock masses are often subjected to dynamic distur­

bances, and in general, the disturbance stresses are usually equivalent to
cyclic or fatigue loading [2,19,29]. In fact, the disturbance stress acting
on the rock is variable rather than constant, especially as excavation and
blasting occur and the magnitude of the applied stress increases.
Therefore, the study of the effect of variable amplitude values on the
fatigue mechanical behaviour of rocks is essential for long-term stability
prediction. The fatigue mechanical properties of the rock are different
from the static behaviour. Scholars have performed numerous studies to Fig. 19. Relationship between damping ratio and confining pressure under the
reveal the dynamic behaviour of rocks [30–34]. However, the damping same amplitude.
properties of rocks are mostly studied by means of stress paths and rarely
analysed from the strain perspective. Scholars who perform analysis
from the strain perspective generally use low strain (10− 5 to 10− 8) and

9
B. Yang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107557

Fig. 20. Relationship between shear strain and normalized damping ratio under variable amplitude.

Fig. 21. Relationship between shear strain and normalized damping ratio under the same amplitude.

behaviours under different confining pressure conditions, which is due

Table 5
to the different mineral compositions of the two rocks. Granite belongs
Normalized parameters related to the damping ratio in red sandstone and
to igneous rocks, and the main mineral compositions are orthoclase and
granite.
quartz. Granite is a rock with a full crystalline structure connected to the
Loading Rock type λ
lattice by chemical bonding, with fine and uniform grains and a tight
method
structure. Red sandstone is a sandy structure cemented by quartz, feld­
Variable Red λ = ( − 3.63 + 2.68σ3 + 24.19D − 1.69σ3 D + spar, muscovite and some rock fragments. The energy consumed by
amplitude sandstone 17.85D2 )[0.082 + 42.682e(− γd /0.216) ]
chemical bond dislocation fracture is much greater than the energy
Granite λ = (0.13 + 7.76σ3 + 34.22D + 32.59σ3 D +
3.70D2 )[0.057 + 2.473e(− γd /0.171) ]
consumed by the destruction of the cement material [19]. Under the
Same Red λ = (4.72 + 17.67σ3 + 30.53S + 1.74σ3 S + same amplitude conditions, the shear strain of granite is in the range of
amplitude sandstone 6.86S2 )[0.179 + 35.713e(− γd /0.226) ] 0.0011–0.0097 and that of sandstone is in the range of 0.0049–0.0175.
Granite λ = (0.02 + 18.30σ3 + 10.85S + 35.38σ3 S + The trends of the dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio with shear
0.81S2 )[0.148 + 2.563e(− γd /0.473) ] strain for granite and sandstone at the same amplitude are similar to
those at variable amplitudes.
To describe the relationship between the dynamic shear modulus,
high strain (10− 2 to 10− 4). The strain range of 0.001–0.02 is used in this
damping ratio and cyclic shear strain, the Hardin hyperbolic model was
study, and the dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio of the rock
introduced. The Hardin model does not reflect the stress–strain rela­
under cyclic loading conditions of variable amplitude and same ampli­
tionship of the rock well, which directly affects the maximum dynamic
tude are investigated.
shear modulus and ultimate cyclic shear stress. Therefore, the Hardin
The obtained results show that the shear strain of granite is in the
hyperbolic model was modified as shown in Table 1. The normalized
range of 0.0011–0.0109 and that of sandstone is in the range of
shear modulus and normalized damping ratio estimated by the modified
0.0056–0.0199 under variable amplitude conditions. With increasing
model are in good agreement with the experimental data at different
shear strain, the dynamic shear modulus of both sandstone and granite
confining pressures. However, the dynamic properties of rocks are
under different confining pressures showed an increasing trend. In
closely related to their own characteristics, such as porosity, perme­
addition, red sandstone and granite exhibit different damping
ability, and composition, which can affect them. In this study, we only

10
B. Yang et al.
discuss the effects of three factors, namely, confining pressure, variable
amplitude and same amplitude, and do not consider other factors.
Therefore, other influencing factors will be considered in future studies.
7. Conclusion
In this study, the influence of two strain paths on the evolution
characteristics of the damping ratio and dynamic shear modulus under
different confining pressures are studied by cyclic triaxial loading. The
relationship between the dynamic shear modulus, damping ratio and
shear strain of red sandstone and granite under different strain ampli­
tudes, the same strain amplitude and confining pressures are discussed.
An empirical model is proposed to estimate the relationship between the
dynamic shear modulus, damping ratio and shear strain. The conclu­
sions are summarized as follows.
1. A modified Hardin hyperbolic model is proposed to describe the
relationship between cyclic shear stress and cyclic shear strain. The
obtained results show that the modified Hardin model is in good
agreement with the experimental data. This shows that the modified
Hardin model can accurately predict the cyclic shear stress. When c is
1, the modified Hardin model can degenerate into the Hardin model.
2. In this study, the strain range used is 0.001–0.02. Under the condi­
tion of variable amplitude, the shear strain of sandstone has a
nonlinear correlation with the dynamic shear modulus. As the shear
strain increases, the dynamic shear modulus under different
confining pressures shows an increasing trend. As the shear strain
increases, the damping ratio of sandstone and granite first decreases
and then increases. When the shear strain is constant, the damping
ratio of red sandstone and granite is less affected by the confining
pressure.
3. At the same amplitude, the dynamic shear modulus increases with
increasing shear strain under different confining pressures. When the
shear strain is kept constant, the dynamic shear modulus increases as
the confining pressure increases. In the initial stage of cyclic loading,
with increasing shear strain, the damping ratio decreases, the pri­
mary and secondary cracks greatly expand, and the damping energy
dissipation between the cracks increases. At this time, the damping
ratio increases to a certain extent.
4. Considering the abovementioned three factors, two empirical for­
mulas are established to estimate the relationship between the dy­
namic shear modulus and damping ratio and cyclic shear strain.
These two empirical models can be used to predict the dynamic shear
modulus and damping ratio under multistage cyclic loading. The
obtained results show that the two empirical models can be used to
predict the dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio of red sand­
stone and granite under the influence of graded cycles.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Beibei Yang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software. Min­
gming He: Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. Zhiqiang Zhang: Visualization, Investigation. Jiwei Zhu: Su­
pervision. Yunsheng Chen: Software, Validation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This study is sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Grants No. 42177158, 11902249and 11872301), Key
Research and Development project of Shaanxi Province (No. 2022SF-
11
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107557
412), Education Bureau of Shaanxi Province in China (Grant No.
20JS093). Opening fund of State Key Laboratory of Geohazard Preven­
tion and Geoenvironment Protection (Chengdu University of Technol­
ogy (Grants No. SKLGP2022K005). Open subject of Urban Geology and
Underground Space Engineering Technology Research Center of
Shaanxi Province (2022 KT-01). The financial support provided by this
sponsor is greatly appreciated.
References
[1] Guo JQ, Huang ZH. A preliminary study on the constitutive model of rock fatigue
under cyclic loading. Chin J Geotech Eng 2015;37(9):1698–704.
[2] Wang Y, Li CH, Han JQ. On the effect of stress amplitude on fracture and energy
evolution of pre-flawed granite under uniaxial increasing-amplitude fatigue loads.
Eng Fract Mech 2020:240.
[3] Wang JT, et al. The effects of thermal treatments on the fatigue crack growth of
Beishan granite: an in situ observation study. Bull Eng Geol Environ 2020;80(2):
1541–55.
[4] Zhu YL, Yu J, Cai YY, Tang X, Yao W, Liu XY, Gong FQ. A novel fatigue damage
model of rock considering temperature effects. Adv Civ Eng 2020:2020.
[5] Wang SN, Zhu Y, Ma W, Wang ZH, Li GY. Effects of rock block content and
confining pressure on dynamic characteristics of soil-rock mixtures. Eng Geol 2021:
280.
[6] Chen GX, Zhou ZL, Sun T, Wu Q, Xu LY, et al. Shear modulus and damping ratio of
sand–gravel mixtures over a wide strain range. J Earthq Eng 2019;23(8).
[7] Ahn JK, Park D, Yoo JK. Estimation of damping ratio of rock mass for numerical
simulation of blast induced vibration propagation. Jpn Geotech Soc Spec Publ
2016;2(45).
[8] Song K, Jung SH, Cho GC, Lee JH. Seismic analysis of tunnel considering the strain-
dependent shear modulus and damping ratio of a Jointed rock mass. J Kor Tunn
Undergr Space Assoc 2010;12(4).
[9] Worthington MH, King MS, Marsden JR. Determining the damping factor of
sedimentary rocks required for seismically designed structures. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 2001;38(6).
[10] Okur DV, Ansal A. Stiffness degradation of natural fine grained soils during cyclic
loading. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2007;27(9):843–54.
[11] Nishi K, Kokushao T, Essahi Y. Dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio of rocks
for a wide confining pressure range. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1983;
21(5):223–6.
[12] Liu JF, Xie HP, Xu J, et al. Experimental study on rock damping characteristics
under cyclic loading. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 2008;27(4):712–7.
[13] Tutuncu AN, Podio AL, Gregory AR, Sharma MM. Nonlinear viscoelastic behavior
of sedimentary rocks, Part II: hysteresis effects and influence of type of fluid on
elastic moduli. Geophysics 1998;63(1):195–203.
[14] Liu JF, Xu J, Li QS, Li GL. Experimental study on rock damping parameters test
under cyclic loading. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 2010;29(5):1036–41.
[15] Xiao JQ, Feng XT, Ding DX. Study on the hysteresis and damping effect of rock
under constant cyclic loading. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 2010;29(8):1677–83.
[16] Zhu ZD, Sun LZ, Wang MY. Rock damping ratio test and detailed analysis of
deformation and failure mechanism under different frequency cyclic loads. Rock
Soil Mech 2010;31(S1):8–12.
[17] Huang LX. Experimental research and measurement of damping characteristics of
rock materials. Site Invest Sci Technol 1987;(6):35–9.
[18] Deng PH, Liu QS, Huang X, Ma H. A new hysteretic damping model and application
for the combined finite-discrete element method (FDEM). Eng Anal Bound Elem
2021;132:370–82.
[19] He MM, Zhang ZQ, Li N. Experimental investigation and empirical model to
determine the damping and shear stiffness properties of soft rock under multistage
cyclic loading. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2021:147.
[20] Verrucci L, Pagliaroli A, Lanzo G, Buccio FD, Biasco AP, Cucci C. Damping
formulations for finite difference linear dynamic analyses: performance and
practical recommendations. Comput Geotech 2022:142.
[21] He MM, Li N, Zhu CH, Chen YS, Wu H. Experimental investigation and damage
modeling of salt rock subjected to fatigue loading. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2019;
114:17–23.
[22] Fairhurst CE, Hudson JA, Draft ISRM. Suggested method for the complete stress-
strain curve for intact rock in uniaxial compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;
36(3):281–9.
[23] Hardin BO, Drnevich VP. Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations
and curves. J Soil Mech Found Div 1972;98(7):667–92.
[24] Hardin BO, Drnevich VP. Shear modulus and damping in soil: measurement and
parameter effects. ASCE Soil Mech Found Div J 1972;98(6):603–24.
[25] Wang ZA, Kang Y, Xie FQ, Shi HQ, Wu N, Wang ZF, et al. Experimental
investigation on the penetration characteristics of low-frequency impact of pulsed
water jet. Wear 2022:488.
[26] Onifade I, Birgisson B. Improved models for the prediction of asphalt binder
dynamic shear modulus and phase angle. Construct Build Mater 2020:250.
[27] Wu Q, Ma WJ, Liu QF, Zhao K, Chen GX. Dynamic shear modulus and damping
ratio of rubber-sand mixtures with a wide range of rubber content. Mater Today
Commun 2021:27.
[28] Zhang Y, Ma T, Luo X, Huang XM, Lytton RL. Prediction of dynamic shear modulus
of fine aggregate matrix using discrete element method and modified Hirsch
model. Mech Mater 2019;138.
B. Yang et al.
[29] Zhao K, Ma HL, Liang XP, Li XX, Liu YB, Cai R, et al. Damage evaluation of rock salt
under multilevel cyclic loading with constant stress intervals using AE monitoring
and CT scanning. J Pet Sci Eng 2022:208.
[30] Demirdag S, Tufekci K, Kayacan R, Yavuz H, Altindag R. Dynamic mechanical
behavior of some carbonate rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2010;47(2):307–12.
[31] Li YZ, Dai F, Wei MD, Du HB. Numerical investigation on dynamic fracture
behavior of cracked rocks under mixed mode I/II loading. Eng Fract Mech 2020:
235.
12
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 163 (2022) 107557
[32] Xu Y, Dai F, Du HB. Experimental and numerical studies on compression-shear
behaviors of brittle rocks subjected to combined static-dynamic loading. Int J Mech
Sci 2020:175.
[33] Yin P, Ma HC, Liu XW, Bi J, Zhou XP, Berto F. Numerical study on the dynamic
fracture behavior of 3D heterogeneous rocks using General Particle Dynamics.
Theor Appl Fract Mech 2018;96:90–104.
[34] You W, Dai F, Liu Y, Du HB, Jiang RC. Investigation of the influence of
intermediate principal stress on the dynamic responses of rocks subjected to true
triaxial stress state. Int J Min Sci Technol 2021;31(5):913–26.