Proceedings of Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

August 2—9,1988, Tokyo~Kyoto, J A P A N (VOLHI)

44:1
CHARACTERIZATION O F MATERIAL DAMPING IN SOIL

Meei-Ling LlNl, Sheng-Huoo Nl2, Stephen G. WRIGHT3,

and Kenneth H. STOKOE, ”4
1Associate
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engrg., Natl. Taiwan Univ., Taiwan, ROC
2Associate
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engrg., National Cheng-Kung Univ.,
Taiwan, ROC
3Ashley
H. Priddy Centennial Professor, Dept. of Civil Engrg., Univ. of Texas
at Austin, USA
4Brunswick-Abernathy
Regents Professor, Dept. of Civil Engrg., Univ. of
Texas at Austin, USA

SUMMARY
T h e dissipation of e n e r g y in s o i l s during cyclic loading i s often represented by
material d a m p i n g coefficients measured experimentally with e i t h e r r e s o n a n t column o r
torsional simple s h e a r equipment. For soils with an elliptical hysteretic stress-strain
c u r v e , material d a m p i n g m e a s u r e d by t h e s e two test m e t h o d s s h o u l d b e identical.
However, experimental measurements produce different values of damping, especially at
large strains. T h e differences may be d u e to a combinaiton of: 1 . the methods of
interpreting t h e m e a s u r e m e n t s , 2 . frequency d e p e n d e n c y in t h e d a m p i n g , and 3. t h e
effect of non-elliptical, stress—strain hysteresis loops.
INTRODUCTION
It i s well known that s o i l s dissipate e n e r g y w h e n subjected to cyclic loading such
as that generated by earthquake loading. This aspect of soil behavior is commonly
characterized in terms of a material damping coefficient which, in the case of harmonic
loading, is measured experimentally in the laboratory. Two of t h e most common
measurement methods are free—vibration-decay tests and steady-state cyclic s he a r tests.
Several approaches have b e e n used t o interpret t h e results of such tests a n d to express
the values of material damping. These approaches are fundamentally different and can
lead to different values for material damping as discussed herein.
DAMPING FROM FREE-VIBRATION DECAY
One of the most common m e a n s of measuring material damping is the resonant
column test. In t h i s test a cylindrical specimen is excited in torsional steady-state vibration
at its resonant frequency. After steady—state motion is established, the excitation power is
abruptly halted, and the specimen is allowed to vibrate freely. The amplitude of motion
during free vibration decays, as illustrated in Fig. 1 . Damping is determined b
calculating a logarithmic decrement from the decay curve. The logarithmic decrement, ,
is defined as t h e natural logarithm of t h e ratio of amplitudes of vibration on two
successive cycles as:
8 == ln(Xi/Xi+1) (1)
where x. is the peak displacement on the i—th cycle and x is the peak displacement on
the next (i + 1) cycle. i+1
The logarithmic decrement is sufficient to describe material damping; however, for
eotechnical engineering applications damping is often expressed and reported in other
orms, which are derived from the logarithmic decrement. The most common form for this
purpose i s t h e " d a m p i n g ratio" which represents t h e fraction of critical d a m p i n g for a
vrscously damped, single-degree—of~freedom system. The damping ratio, D, is defined
as,
D=cICc (2)

III*5
 A
Displacement, X

Fig. 1 Typical Free-Vibration Decay Curve from Resonant Column Test

where c is the viscous damping coefficient and c is the critical damping coefficient (0 .—.=
2%). The logarithmic decrement for a smgle-de ree-of-freedom system is related to the
damping ratio by:

D= 52/(41c2-82) .(3)
A complex stiffness may also be used to describe material damping for a single-
degree-of—freedom system. The complex stiffness is of the form: '
iki
k = kr + (4)

where i = fl and k and k. are the real and imaginary parts, respectively, of the complex
stiffness. The logarithmic decrement is related to the complex stiffness by the follbwing
expresswn:
5 = 21: (ki/kr)[1/(1+ V1 + (ki/kr)2 ) ] (5)
In the case of soil and the resonant column test, Eq. 5 is written in terms of complex shear
modulus (G ) rather than stiffness (k ) to give:
5 = 21r(Gi/Gr)[1/(1+ \11+ (oi/c302 )1 (a)
where Gr and Gi are the real and imaginary parts, respectively, of the complex shear
modulus (G* = Gr + iGi).
The logarithmic decrement may be expressed either in terms of a damping ratio, D
(Eq. 3), or a complex stiffness ratio, Gi/Gr (Eq. 6). For most anal ses of soil response
under dynamic loading, analytical expressions describing soil ehavibr are usually
written to include effects of material damping in terms of a complex shear modulus rather
than the material damping ratio (D). Accordingly, it would seem logical to expressthe
damping in terms of the complex stiffness ratio, Gi/Gr. However, historically laboratory
measurements have commonly been expressed using the damping ratio, D. The use of
either is somewhat arbitrary and one can be calculated from the other by the relationship:

c3.i (7)
D = “G";

For small values of damping the above relationship can be simplified to:
D = (as/(2 Gr) (8)

III -6
 DAMPING FROM STEADY—STATE, STRESS-STRAIN RESPONSE
Material clamping can be calculated from the stress-strain response in steady-state
cyclic loading using a variety of testing techniques including torsional simple shear,
direct simple shear, and triaxial shear. Damping is calculated from the stress—strain
response by determining the amount of strain energy dissipated (AE) in one cycle of
loading using the following formulalz
d = Ara/(41:5) (9)
The quantity "E" in the denominator of Eq. 9 is termed either the "peak elastic strain
energy" or the "potential energy at peak strain". For a linear hysteretic material,
represented by a complex shear modulus, the peak elastic strain energy is given by:
E=1l2 6,73 =1/2 co car/(<3.r +91) (10)
where, t and 7 represent the amplitude (peak values) of shear stress and strain in one
cycle of loadingcig. 2). The corresponding damping is then given by:
d= Gi/(2Gr) (11)
in the case of real soils, the stress-strain loops are shaped more often like the one
shown in Fig. 3 rather than the one shown in Fig. 2. The damping is computed using Eq.
9 with the peak elastic strain energy represented by the shaded triangular area shown in
Fig. 3. The dissipated energy, AE, IS always taken as the area of the stress-strain loop.
Dampin f o r real soils computed using Eq. 9 i s often subsequently used to
compute comp ex shear moduli for use in analyses by using Eq. 11. In addition, the real
part of the complex modulus is often taken to be equal to the secant modulus, Gsec (Fig.
3), which is the modulus typically measured in torsional simple shear tests. Use of Eq. 11
along with the assumption that Gr z: Gsec introduces errors in the solution, especially for
larger values of damping. A more appropriate set of equations for relating the complex
modulus used in numerical analyses to the damping measured for soils i n the laboratory
can be obtained by relating the dissipated energies and peak amplitudes of stress and
strain. The dissipated energy measured in the laboratory is related to the dissipated
energy produced by the complex shear moduli (Gr and G i ) y
AEztcto Gi/(Gr +ei ).—-.1c—yo Gi (12)
where To and yo represent the peak shear stress and peak shear strain, respectively. In
the laboratory the "peak elastic strain energy”, E, is computed from:
1
E=§To “Yo
(13)

where to and yo represent the peak shear stress and peak shear strain, respectively. The
peak shear stress and strain are related to the complex modulus by:

1:ol'Yo"=‘\/G'r + G i
(14)

Introduction of Eq. 14 into Eq. 13 then gives:

5 51120 / , [of + a? =57“

1 2 (of
+ <32i (15)

1The
lower-case letter "d” is used to represent the damping ratio defined from the hysteretic stress—strain
loop to contrast this from the damping ratio (D) representing the fraction of critical damping. However, the
same letter has often’ been used for material damping without regard to how it was defined in much of the
geotechnical engineering literature.

III -7
 l l
Shear Stress i Shear Stress i Aesmm

10- Area: To 1
1
Peak Elastic Peak Elastic
Energy, E Energy. E

70 Shear'Strain M “Yo Shear Strain

Fig. 2 Stress—Strain Hysteresis Loop for Fig. 3 Typical Stress-Strain Hysteresis

ldeal Linear Hysteretlc Material Loop for Soil
This equation (15) for the energy differs from the expression given by Eq. 10, which
represents the true "elastic strain energy”; however, Eq. 15 is more consistent with the
definition of the peak strain energy used to compute damping from the results of
laboratory tests. Introduction of Eqs. 12 and 15 into the equation for the damping ratio, d,
t en gives:
dae.i / gaff». (oi/arm (16)
Equation 16 along with the followin equation can be combined to relate the damping
ratio (d) and secant shear modulus Gsec) measured in the laboratory to the equivalent
complex modulus (C3r and Gi):

‘ G s e c a fl ’6'. + G i
(17)

The equivalent complex modulus used in subsequent numerical computations of soil

response will then produce identical amounts of dissipated energy to what was
measured in the laboratory, and for a given amplitude of stress, To. the corresponding
strain amplitudes for the laboratory and analytical model will be identical. For small
values of damping there is essentially no difference between Eqs. 11 and 16, but for
larger values of damping the differences become significant.
EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS '
Material damping in shear was evaluated for a dry sand and a saturated clay
using resonant column/torsional shear (RCTS) equipment. This equipment has the
advantage that the same soil specimen can be tested either in a resonant mode or a
cyclic mode simply by changing the excitation frequency to the drive system (Ref. 1). The
equipment functions as a fixed—free resonant column at excitation frequencies above 15
Hz, and material damping can be evaluated from the free—vibration decay curve as
illustrated in Fig. 1 and outlined by E . 3 . The equipment can also be used to excite the
same specimen in torsional simple 5 ear at frequencies of 1 Hz or less. In this case,
material damping is evaluated from the hysteresis loop as illustrated in Fig. 3 and
outlined in Eq. 9. '
Material damping using the RCTS equipment is presented in Fig. 4 for a dry sand.
The damping ratios show a significant difference between the values measured by the
two methods over mostof the strain range. At small strains, strains less than about

III - 8
0.005%, damping values measured by free-vibration decay are larger than those
measured with the hysteresis loop. On the other hand, at strains above about 0.005%,
the reverse occurs, and damping from hysteresis loops is larger. These results are quite
typical of dry sands measured by numerous investigators.

12 20

‘0 ' 16 ..
E e. E
.e .o
0‘: B _ g
8’ . .
a. Torsional Simple a e- Torsronai Simple
E4 Shear ~ g Shear
D l y c:
2 )- R6331??? 4r Resonant
Test Column
0 l . .1 r n l n l l l l 4 . 4 . . . . 1 . 0 M l l u u l J I l l l n l l l 1 Test
L ‘ l l J J l

.0001 .001 .01 0.1 .0001 .001 .01 0.1

Shearing Strain. 7 W Shearing Strain,1(%)

Fig. 4 Damping Ratios Measured Fig. 5 Damping Ratios Measured

for a Dry Sand for a Saturated Clay
Measurements of material damping for a saturated clay using the RCTS
equipment are shown in Fig. 5 (Ref. 2). Again, there is a difference between damping
values by the two techni ues. However, in this case, material damping from hysteresis
loops is always larger. nfortunately, damping at very small strains (less than 0.001%)
could not be measured in torsional simple shear because of ambient noise. However,
the results do show, as with the sand, that resently there can be considerable difference
between material damping measured by di erent methods.
DISCUSSION
As already discussed, the damping (D) com uted from the logarithmic decrement
for free-vibration tests using Eq. 3 and the damping (d) computed from the hysteretic
stress—strain curve using Eq. 9 will be essentially identical for a linear hysteretic material
characterized b a complex modulus. This can be shown by computing values for
dampin using qs. 7 and 16 for various values of the complex modulus ratio, GglGr.
ValuesGor damping computed using the two equations are:
Damping.
,5“ D Damping, d
r (free—vibration decay) (hysteretic stress-strain)
.25 .12 .12
.50 .23 .22
.75 .32 .30
The differences between these two sets of damping values are negligible re ardless of
the level of damping. However, damping values determined experimentally or soils by
the two methods can show considerable differences which need to be reconciled.
The differences between the damping value 3 (D, (1) shown in Figs. 4 and 5 may be
due to a number of factors. Firstly, in the free~v b"ation decay tests, the strain amplitude

III -9
decreases during tree vibration decay where measurements are taken. Above strains on
the order of 0.001%, D varies with strain, and the damping value represents only an
“equivalent" damping because the strain amplitude to which D is related can only be
taken as some representative "mean" value. Although t h e effect of variable strain
amplitude could be reduced by computing the damping over only a single cycle or even
a fraction of a cycle, the effect of varying strain amplitude still has an important influence
on the results w ich is presently not taken into account.
Another source of differences between the clamping measured by the two
procedures may be the effect which frequency has on damping. The measurements are
taken at different frequencies. In the free-vibration decay test, measurements are made
at the damped natural frequency of vibration which depends on the soil stiffness and
dampin as well as the dimensions of the specimen and apparatus configuration. The
dampe natural frequency of vibration also changes slightly during free-vibration above
strains on the order of 0.001% due to changes in specimen stiffness and damping with
strain. In torsional simple shear the dampin i s measured at a m u c h lower frequency
which is specifically kept low so that inertial 9 acts do not influence the results.
Damping calculated from logarithmic decrement for free-vibration decay is based
on the assumption of a vibrating system in which an elliptical hysteresis loop is implicit for
material response, regardless of whether the response is assumed to be viscous
(governed by damping c and stiffness k) or linear hysteretic (governed by a complex
stiffness of the form k = k + M. On the other hand the damping in torsional simple shear
is calculated from an qatiorl (Eq. 9) in which no particular form of hysteresis loop is
assumed. It has been shown herein that both types of damping should agree when the
damping is calculated from the e uations presented and the material response is
governed by an elliptical hysteresis cop that can be described by a complex modulus.
However, it is well-recognized that the actual stress-strain loops are often not elliptical for
actual soils.
CONCLUSIONS
Different values for material damping of soil are measured i n t h e laboratory under
free-vibration decay and steady-state cyclic shear. These differences are probably due
to fundamental aspects of soil behavior rather than errors in the test procedures.
However, interpretation of the data at high strains in free-vibration-decay tests may also
contribute to incorrect representation of the results. Identical values to? the damping ratio,
(D or d), should be computed from free-vibration decay and hysteretic stress-strain
curves, respectively, provided that the soil behaves as a linear hysteretic material. The
fact that different values are measured indicates that the dampin , is either frequency
dependent or the stress-strain "loops“ are not elliptical or both. amping is probably
frequency dependent to some extent, and the streSs-strain loo 3 are known to be non-
elliptical in many cases. Regardless of whether damping (D or cl is determined from free-
vibration—decay tests or cyclic shear tests, the damping should be considered an
approximation when it is used to compute a complex modulus for use in subsequent
numerical analyses.
REFERENCES
1. Ni, SH (1987), "D namic Properties of Sand Under True Triaxial Stress States from
Resonant Column orsional Shear Tests," Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas
at Austin, 421 p.
2. Stokoe, K.H., Il, Isenhower, W M , and Hsu, J.R. (1980), "Dynamic Properties of
OTC
Offshore Siltr SampleS." WWW.
3771, Houston, Texas, pp. 289-302.

IIIl