SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS Vol. 33, No. 1, 182-191, Mar.

1993
Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering

UNIFIED DYNAMIC SHEAR MODULI AND

DAMPING RATIOS OF SAND AND CLAY

IsAo lSHIBASHii) and XINJIAN ZHANaii)

ABSTRACT
Available experimental data on dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios of various soils
including non-plastic sands to highly plastic clays are collected. Those are reanalyzed and
brought into simple unified formulas. The unified formulas express the dynamic shear moduli
and the damping ratios in terms of maximum dynamic shear modulus, cyclic shear strain
amplitude, mean effective confining pressure and soil's plasticity index. Although the availability
of experimental data on clay is still limited at this time, the formulas fit those data reasonably
well and could be conveniently utilized in dynamic analyses such as seismic ground response and
soil-structure interaction problems.

Key words: clay, cyclic load, damping ratio, plasticity, sand, shear modulus, shear strain (IGC:
D7)

available experimentaldata and an attempt is

INTRODUCTION
Adequate information on dynamic soil prop-
erties, especially dynamic shear modulus and
damping ratio, is essential for accurate com-
putations of ground response and soil-struc-
ture interaction problems. Many experimental
investigations mostly for sandy soils have been
carried out and formulated for general use
(Seed and Idriss, 1970; Hardin and Drnevich,
1972; Seed et al., 1986 and others).
Since those developments on dynamic soil
properties, considerable data for sandy soils
have been accumulated and some data for
highly plastic clays are available at present
time. In this paper the authors reanalyze those
made to establish unified formulas for
dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios to
cover wide variety of soils ranging from sands
to highly plastic clays such as Mexico City
clay. Recently, a similar attempt was made by
Vucetic and Dobry (1991). Their method,
however, failed to include one of the signifi-
cant parameters, namely, the effective mean
normal stress as discussed by Ishibashi ( 1992).
UNIFIED FORMULAS
General Equations for Sandy Soils
Many researchers (Hardin and Drnevich,
1972; Iwasaki et al., 1978; Tatsuoka et al.,

il Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529,
USA.
ii) Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Maryland, formerly Visiting Scholar at Old
Dominion University from Wuyi University, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Manuscript was received for review on January 22, 1992.
Written discussion on this paper should be submitted before October 1, 1993 to the Japanese Sociery of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Sugayama Bldg. 4 F, Kanda Awaji-cho 2-23, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101,
Japan. Upon Request the closing date may be extended one month.

182

This is an Open Access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license.

NII-Electronic Library Service
 UNIFIED DYNAMIC SHEAR MODULI 183

1978; Kokusho, 1980; Ishibashi, 1981 ) found
that the equivalent shear modulus, G is
generally expressed in the form:
G=K (y)f(e)aw<r)
Where K (y) is a decreasing function of the
cyclic shear strain amplitude y, and is unity at
very small y (~ 10- 6 ), f(e) is a function of
void ratio e, ao is the mean effective confining
pressure, and power m(y) is an increasing func-
tion of y. Gmax, the maximum dynamic shear
modulus is the maximum value of G and is usu-
ally obtained at y= 10- 6 or less. Therefore,
Gmax is:
Where
Ko=K(y~10- 6 )=1.0
mo=m(y~ 10- 6
) (4)
From Eqs. (1) and (2), Eq. (5) is obtained:
G Idriss's (1970) Gl Gmax versus y diagram but
-=K(y)a[f<r)-mo
Gmax
Eq. (5) can be rewritten in:
G
log-=logK(y)+{m(y)-mo} log ao (6)
Gmax
(1)
Khouri (1984) analyzed available experimental
data (Drnevich and Richart, 1970; Seed and
Idriss, 1970; Silver and Seed, 1971; Hashiba,
1971; Hardin and Drnevich, 1972;
Kuribayashi et al., 1974 and 1975; Hara and
Kiyota, 1976; Sherif and Ishibashi, 1976;
Sherif et al., 1977; Iwasaki and Tatsuoka,
1977; Iwasaki et al., 1978; Tatsuoka et al.,
1979; Uchida et al., 1980; Kim and Novak,
1981; Kokusho, 1981; Chung et al., 1984).
Data were plotted on log G I Gmax and log ao at
(2)
various levels of y. m(y)-mo values were then
determined from the slope and K (y) values
from intersections at ao= 1.0 kN I m2 axis for
(3)
individual plots of various y. Figs. 1 and 2
show K (y) and m(y)- mo values as a function
of y, respectively. It shall be noted that K (y)
versus y curve is a similar one to the Seed and
(5)
those are not necessarily comparable since the

1.20 Drnevtch and Richart (1970)

Silver and Seed (19'71) ~
Kurlba;vQhl et aL (1974)
Hashlba (19'71)
Seed and lclrlss (1970)
••
0
Kurlba;vashl et aL (19'75)
Kurlba;vashl et aL (19'74)
Kokusho (1981)
•e.
0 KokUiho (1980) t)
Iwasaki et aL (19'78) 0
Q
HIU'dln an~ Drnevteh (1972) 'Q
0.80 Sherll and IS~bashl (1976) A
0 0 Chung, Yokel and Dmevlc:h (1984) 0
Tatsuoka et aL (19'79)
X
• X
i Iwasaki and Tatsuoka (19'7'7)
Equation (7)
®
•
0.60
• i
X ~
"
0.40
SANDS
+
•
~

0.20 +

+
0.00
10 -B 10-5 10-4 10-3 10 - 2
Cyclic Shear Strain Amplitude, y
Fig. 1. K (y) versus y for sands (Khouri, 1984)

NII-Electronic Library Service

184 ISHIBASHI AND ZHANG

0.70 Seed and ldrlss (1970) 0

Hashlba (1971) v
Drnevleh and Richart (1970) ')(
Silver and Seed (1971) +
0
0.60 Kurlbayashl et aL (1974)
Kokusho (1981) •
Q
+
~ Kokusho (1980) t>
Iwasaki et aL (1978) 0
I 0.50 0
~ Hardin and Drnevleh (1972)
Sherif an Ishibashi (1976) "
A
>-
......_, 0.40
Kurlbayashl et aL (197S)
Kurlbayashl et aL (1974)
•
t
A
X
" 0

+ " ~ hl A

:2 Chung, Yokel and Drnevleh (1984)

Tatsuoka et aL (1979)
0
®
A
A A
Ai>
A A A
A
A

0.3~0
Iwasaki and Tatsuoka (197'7)
Equation (8) -• +
)<
X

+()4>

C)Cl
0.20
~

SANDS X
0.10

0. 00 ~9l:=;:::::;=lh-_,!:h-'--+-,--,-..;..,.,n-rr--r---.--r-r-r"'"'T'M---..---r--r--r-~-r-r-rl
10 -B 10--5 10-4 10-3 10 - 2
Cyclic Shear Strain Amplitude, Y
Fig. 2. m(y)-m0 versus y for sands (Khouri, 1984)

curve in Fig. 1 was developed specifically for y~to- 1 •

8 0 =1.0 kN I m 2 while the Seed and Idriss's Hardin and Drnevich (1972) and Tatsuoka
curve was for O'o = 20 to 400 kN I m2 without et al. (1978) proposed that the damping ratio .
considering the variation of m(y) withy. Both D is expressed as a function of G I Gmax:
curves in Figs. I and 2 stay within rather nar-
D= G ) (9)
row ranges and the following equations were ( /- Gmax •
proposed to best fit data points:
Experimental data forD values from the same
(o.o~ r }]
102 92

k(y)=o.s [ 1 +tanh {tn (7) sources of the shear moduli calculation are
plotted in Fig. 3 by using the form of Eq. (9).
Plots are more scattered than previous plots
m(y)-mo=0.272 [ !- for K(y) and m(y)-mo. However, consider-

tanh {tn c-~ )"}

556
l {8)
where y is expressed in raw strain (ml m). Ac-
cordingly, O'o in Eq. (5) is expressed in kNim 2 •
Hyperbolic function was chosen so that the
curves change slowly at low y values and ap-
proach again slowly to limited values at high y
ranges. K (y) is 1.0 at low y( :s; 10- 6 ), 0.5 (mid-
value) at y=0.000102 and nearly 0.0 at
y~ 10- 2 • Similarly, m(y)- mo is 0.0 at y :s; 10- 6 ,
0.272 (mid-value) at y=0.000556 and 0.544 at
ing the fact that measurements of damping
ratio are more sensitive and difficult than the
shear modulus measurements and large damp-
ing ratios would not attain until final stages of
dynamic computations, the scatter of the data
points is considered to be reasonably small.
The damping ratio, accordingly, was fitted by:
n,..,=0.333 {0.586 (o~J
-1.547 (o~J + 1} (10)

NII-Electronic Library Service

 UNIFIED DYNAMIC SHEAR MODULI 185

0.40
Silver and Seed (1971) 9
Dmevlch and Richart (1970) <::/
t Kurlbayaahl et aL (1974) A
i SANDS )(

X
I?
C>
il
Sheri! et aL (1977)
Tatsuoka et aL (1979)
Uchida et aL (1980)
.,
Q

0
0.30 il
C>
il Hara and Klyota (1976)
Hashlba (1971) ••
.. , il
f)

il
il

f)
Q Kurlbayaahl et aL (1978)
Kokusho (1980)
m
0

••
0 ~+ R • Q il Iwasaki et aL (1978)
~ •• '& cfQf +
C>
Q
Seed and ldrlss (1970)
0
~ 0.20
• •
•
0 <3<
•
C>
Q
Hardin and Dmevlch (1972)
Equation (10)
+
e~ ~
Q
O'l

·-c0.. J+
g

E e
):
g '/..
~
0 0.10 a
a
):

0 'f.
)<.
e

0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

G/Gmax.
Fig. 3. Damping ratios versus G I Gmax for sands (Khouri, 1984)

D=0.333 is the maximum damping ratio at
very high shear strain levels (y;;::: 10- 2 ), where
G I Gmax ratio is nearly equal to zero.
Dsand,max = 33.3% is a representative value from
previous researchers (Hardin and Drnevich,
1972; Sherif et al., 1977; Tatsuoka et al., 1978)
for sands.
In Summary, Eqs. (5), (7), (8) for G values
and Eq. (10) for D values are proposed as
average equations to cover most types of
sands.
Modified Formulas for Plastic Soils (Silts and
Clays)
In contrast with sandy soils, the availability
of comprehensive data on dynamic properties
of silts and clays is limited. Researchers
(Kokusho et al., 1982; Dobry and Vucetic,
1987) reported that the modulus and the damp-
ing ratios are significantly affected by soil's
plasticity index (/p). General observations for
non-sandy soils are that: (1) K (y) versus y
curve, such as Fig. 1 moves upper and to the
right-hand direction when lp increases, (2) for
highly plastic clays, the effect of uo on G value
becomes negligible, that is, m (y) -- m 0 function
approaches to zero for high lp values
regardless of y, and (3) the damping ratio D
decreases with increasing lp value. Based on
those observations, k(y), m(y)- mo and D
equations are modified to include lp:
G
--=K(y, lp)u'(?<Y.Ip)-mo (11)
Gmax
D=Dsand · A(/p) (12)
where A (lp) is a modification function for
damping ratio applied to Eq. (10) of sands.
All modifications are made so that Eqs. (11)
and (12) reduce to Eqs. (5) and (10), respec-
tively, at lp = 0 to satisfy the continuity of
material properties from sands to clays.
m (y, lp)- mo function was first determined
from limited laboratory data by the same pro-
cedure used in m(y)-m0 determination for
sandy soils. Fig. 4 shows plots of m(y= 10-3,

NII-Electronic Library Service

186 ISHIBASHI AND ZHANG

0.50 . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

0 0.40
~
I
,..-..
0.
0.30

0
.
II 0.20
Fang et aL (%98%)
;,>- -l Kim and Novak (%981)

••
Kokusho et al. (1982)
'-"' Leon and Rulf:o (1975)
~
0.10 (i) Shamoto (1984)
Equatton(13)

0 50 100 150 200

Plasticity Index, lp
Fig. 4. m(y=O.l%, IP)-m 0 versus IP relationships

/p)- mo versus lp. Data at y= 10- 3 was used for 3

the analysis since that level of shear strain
amplitude affects strongly m (y, lp)- mo func-
tion. From Fig. 4, following formula was
generated:
m(y= 10-\ /p)-mo=0.335e- 0 ·01451 l (13)
where the constant 0.335 is m(y, lp)- mo value
at y= 10- 3 and /p=O from Eq. (8). By combin-
ing Eqs. (8) and (13), Eq. (14) is obtained:

( 0 ' ~ )"'}] e-
0 556 0 01451
m(y, lp)-mo=0.272 [!-tanh {In · l' (14)

m(y, /p)-mo function is identical to Eq. (8) when lp=O (for sandy soils), decreases with increas-
ing lp, and approaches to zero at high lp (practically lp ~ 70) regardless of y.
K (y= 10-\ lp) values were then calculated from Eq. (11) by using experimental data of
G/Gmax and ao and m(y, lp)-mo function in Eq. (14) with known lp values. Fig. 5 shows those
plots. A single function to fit data was not possible so that K (y, lp) was first assumed to be ex-
pressed as:

K(y, lp)=0.5 [ 1 +tanh { In (

0.000102 + n(lp)) .4
y
0 92
} l (15)

where only modification from Eq. (7) is an inclusion of n(lp) function. Comparing Eq. (15) and
data in Fig. 5, following functions were found to satisfy the data reasonably well:
0.0 for lp=O (sandy soils)
3.37 X 6
10- /~.4° 4
for 0</p~ 15 (low plastic soils)
n(lp)= (16)
7.0 X 10- 7/ ~· 976 for 15 <lp~70 (medium plastic soils)
2.7 X 10- 5/};· 115 for lp>_70 (high plastic soils)

NII-Electronic Library Service

 UNIFIED DYNAMIC SHEAR MODULI 187

A solid curve in Fig. 5 is the one based on Eq. lp are plotted in Figs. 6(a), (b), and (c).
(16). Although the scatter of the data is large, the
Experimental data for damping ratio of following observations can be made: (1) the
non-sandy soils with three different ranges of curve for sands (lp=O) defines approximately

1.00 . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

Mexico clay
(Leon et aL (1974), Romo and Jalaie (1986))
(ah:er Dobry and Vucedc (1987))

•
**0 Anderson et aL (1983)
Fane et aL (1981)
Kim and Novak (1981)
• Leon and Rur,o (1975)
(!J Macky and Saada (1984)
• Oh·oka et aL (1979)
X Shamoto (1984)
From Equation (16)

50 100 150 200

Plasticity Index, lp
Fig. 5. K(y=0.1%, JP) versus IP reJationships

0.40 - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . ,

(8) I,.= 1 -IS

- - Fane et aL (1981)
------ Kim and Novak (1981)
- - - - Anderson et aL (1983)
0 0 ..30 1,. =o for sands
0
:.;:;
0
0::: 0.20
.........
O'l
c ---
0..
E
0 0.10
0

0 .0 0 -h--r-r-T""T""'........,...,...,..T""T""'........,.."T""T""rT""'T'"T-r"T""T""rT""'T'"T-r"T""T""r-T""T'"T'"T"""T""T""r-T"'T'"T'"T"".,...,.-I""T'"T.......-l
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
G/Gmax
Fig. 6(a). Damping ratios versus G / Gmax for soils with IP = 1-15

NII-Electronic Library Service

188 ISHIBASHI AND ZHANG

0.40 ,-------------------------------------------~
cb> •p = 16-10
- - Kokusho et aL (1982)
Kim and Novak (1981)
Anderson et a1. (1983)
- - - Macky and Saada (1984)
0 0.30

0
:.;:;
0
0::: 0.20
(])
c
0...
E
0 0.10
0

0. 0 0 -1-r-rr"T"r",.,...,iT"T-rT"T'"IrT"'T""T"T'T"r',.,...,"'"TT-rT"T'"IrT"'T-rT"T'"IrT"l-rT-rT"T'"Ir-rr-l
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
G/Gmax
Fig. 6(b). Damping ratios versus G/Gmax for soils with JP=16-70

0.40 ~------------------------------------------.
CC> Ip > 71
------ Melldco clay (Leon et aL (1974), Romo and Jaime (1986))
(aliter Dobry and Vucetic (1987))
- - - - Kokusho et a1. (1982))

0 0.30

0
:.;:;
0
0::: 0.20
(])
c
·o..
E
0 0.10
0

0 •0 0 ....f-r.,-,-,.,...,--rr.,-,-,.,...,--rr.,-,-,.,...,--rr'T"r'III""T"TTT'"'rT"'T-rrT""T'"'1rT"T-rr'T""11-rT-ri
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
G/Gmax
Fig. 6(c). Damping ratios versus G I Gmax for soils with IP > 71

the upper limit of all the data, (2) the max- G / Gmax curve are similar to the one for sands.
imum damping ratios at G/ Gmax=O.O for Based on those observations, Eq. (17) was pro-
plastic soils reduce to about a half of Dmax posed for the damping ratio for wide variety
(0.333) of sands, and (3) shapes of D versus of soils:

NII-Electronic Library Service

 UNIFIED DYNAMIC SHEAR MODULI 189

t!R 0.40
~

0
.
II
C 0 1 ~ o 0 ~ SO
>-
[!] f) SO< '0 0 ~200
-1-' 0.30
a ~ 1l • 200 < 0 0 ~400

0
.
:;::; 0.20
a
0:::
Ol
c Mexico clay
·-0.. 0.10
(Leon et aL (1974), Romo and Jaime (1986))
(aiter Dobry and VuceUc (1987))
E Oo = 200 kN/111~
0 cc 0
0

0.00
0 50 100 150 200
Plasticity Index, lp
Fig. 7. Analytical and experimental damping ratios versus IP with various iio

D=Dsand · A(Jp) modifications were made to include non-sandy

1 + e -o.oi45IJ.-3
=Dsand · - - -- -
2 unknown in the equations is Gmax, which is the
0.333(1 +e-o.oi4sJJ,-3) { ( G
0.586 -
2 0 max
-1.547 (.!!___)
Gmax
+ 1}
where D=Dsand at /p=O,the maximum damp-
ing ratio for large lp values (practically lp > 70)
is 0.167, and the same exponential function
for A(lp) was used as the one in the modifica-
tion of m(y, lp)- m 0 in Eqs. (13) and (14). Fig.
7 compares analytical and experimental D
values at y= 10- 3 • The scatter of the data is
large but those still stay within a reasonable
range.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Equivalent shear moduli and damping
ratios for sandy soils were collected first and
simple formulas were proposed. Further
soils. The final unified formulas are presented
in Eqs. (11), (14), (15), (16), and (17). Only
)z maximum shear modulus at very low strain
levels. The value can be measured more ac-
curately by laboratory resonant column ex-
(17) periments or readily converted from the
measurement of shear wave velocities in the
field. The in-situ moduli, Gmax are also conve-
niently related to undrained shear strength or
standard penetration values (Hara et al., 1974)
which are often measured in the practice. In
addition, many previous researchers (Hardin
and Drnevich, 1972; Sherif and Ishibashi,
1976; Iwasaki et al., 1978) have published Gmax
values for sandy soils. Those Gmax values could
be utilized in computations with a rather high
degree of confidence when actual measure-
ments are not available.
Recent research by Seed et al. (1986) also
concluded that their previous curves (Seed and
Idriss, 1970) for sands are applicable to even
gravelly soils so that these proposed equations

NII-Electronic Library Service

190 ISHIBASHI AND ZHANG
in this paper could be extended to include
gravelly soils. The proposed formulas were
also based on normally consolidated clays.
However, from the fact that those properties
are not much affected by overconsolidation
ratio (Kokusho et al., 1982), the formulas
could be extended to include moderately over-
consolidated clays.
REFERENCES
1) Anderson, D. G., Phukunhaphan, A., Douglas, B. J.
and Martin, G. R. (1983): "Cyclic behavior of six
marine clays," Proc. of the 1983 ASCE Convention,
Session No. 52-Evaluation of Seafloor Soil Properties
under Cyclic Loads, Houston, Texas.
2) Chung, M., Yokel, Y. and Drnevich, V. P. (1984):
"Evaluation of dynamic properties of sands by reso-
nant column testings," ASTM, Geotechnical Testing
Journal, Vol. 7, No.2, pp. 60-69.
3) Dobry, R. and Vucetic, M. (1987): "Dynamic proper-
ties and seismic response of soft clay deposits," Proc.
of International Symposium on Geotechnical
Engineering of Soft Soils, Mexico City, Vol. 2, pp.
51-87.
4) Drnevich, V. P. and Richart, F. E., Jr. (1970):
"Dynamic prestraining of dry sand," Journal of
SMFD, Proc. of ASCE, Vol. 96, No. SM2, pp. 453-
469.
5) Fang, H. Y., Chaney, R. C. and Pandit, N. S. (1981):
"Dynamic shear modulus of soft silt," International
Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Ear-
thquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Vol. II, pp.
575-580.
6) Hara, A., Ohta, T., Niwa, M., Tanaka, S. and Ban-
no, T. (1974): "Shear modulus and shear strength of
cohesive soils," Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE,
Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 1-12.
7) Hara, A. and Kiyota, Y. (1976): "Dynamic behavior
of sand in small strain levels," Proc. of 11th Annual
Meeting of JSSMFE, pp. 331-334 (in Japanese).
8) Hardin, B. 0. and Drnevich, V. P. (1972): "Shear
modulus and damping in soils: Design equations and
curves," Journal of SMFE, Proc. of ASCE, Vol. 98,
No. SM7, pp. 667-692.
9) Hashiba, T. (1971): "Simple shear apparatus using an
inclinometer," Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE,
Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 113-119.
10) Ishibashi, I. (1981): "Dynamic soil properties,"
Proc. of the Joint U.S.-P .R.C. Microzonation
Workshop, Harbin, China, pp. 16. 1-21.
11) Ishibashi, I. (1992): Discussion to "Effect of soil
plasticity on cyclic response" by M. Vucetic and R.
Dobry, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
VOL. 118, No. 5, pp. 830-832.
12) Iwasaki, T. and Tatsuoka, F. (1977): "Effects of
grain size and grading on dynamic shear moduli of
sand," Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, Vol. 17,
No. 3, pp. 19-35.
13) Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F. and Takagi, Y. (1978):
"Shear modulus of sands under torsional shear
loading," Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, Vol. 18,
No. 1, pp. 39-56.
14) Khouri, N. Q. (1984): "Dynamic properties of soils,"
Master Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
Syracuse University.
15) Kim, T. C. and Novak, M. (1981): "Dynamic proper-
ties of some cohesive soils of Ontario," Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 18, pp. 371-389.
16) Kokusho, T. (1980): "Cyclic triaxial test of dynamic
soil properties for wide strain range,'' Soils and Foun-
dations, JSSMFE, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 45-60.
17) Kokusho, T. (1981): "Dynamic properties of defor-
mation and damping properties of coarse soil for
wide range," Japanese Central Electric Power
Research Institute, Report No. 380002 (in Japanese).
18) Kokusho, T., Yoshida, Y. and Esashi, Y. (1982):
"Dynamic properties of soft clay for wide strain
range," Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, Vol. 22,
No. 4, pp. 1-18.
19) Kuribayashi, E., Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F. and
Horiuchi, S. (1974): "Dynamic behavior of sand:
Measurement in resonant column device," Public
Work Research Institute Report.
20) Kuribayashi, E., Iwasaki, T. and Tatsuoka, F. (1975):
''Effect of stress-strain condition on dynamic proper-
ties of sand," Proc. of JSCE, No. 242, October, pp.
105-114.
21) Leon, J. L., Jaime, A. and Rabago, A. (1974):
"Dynamic properties of soils-preliminary study," In-
stitute of Engineering, UNAM, (in Spanish).
22) Leon, J. L. and Rufgo, A. (1975): "Dynamic tests on
clays from valley of Mexico," 5th Pan American Con-
ference on Soil Mechanics, Vol. I, pp. 43-53.
23) Macky, T. A. and Saada, A. S. (1984): "Dynamics of
anisotropic clays under large strains," Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 4,
April, pp. 487-504.
24) Oh-oka, H., Itoh, K., Sugimura, Y. and Hirosawa,
M. (1979): "Stress-strain behavior of dry sand and
normally consolidated clay by inter-laboratory
cooperative cyclic shear tests," Proc. of 11th Joint
Meeting, U.S.-Japan Panel on Wind and Seismic
Effects, UJNR, Tsukuba, Japan, September.
25) Romo, M. P. and Jaime, A. (1986): "Dynamic charac-
teristics of some clays of the Mexico valley and
seismic response of the ground," Instituto de In-
genieria, Technical Report, Instituto de lngenieria (in
Spanish).
26) Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M. (1970): "Soil moduli
and damping factors for dynamic response analysis,"
Report No. EERC 70-10, University of California,
Berkeley.
27) Seed, H. B., Wang, R. T., ldriss, I. M. and Tokimat-
su, K. (1986): "Moduli and dynamic factors for
dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils," Journal of
NII-Electronic Library Service
 UNIFIED DYNAMIC SHEAR MODULI
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 11,
pp. 1016-1032.
28) Shamoto, Y. (1984): "Applicability of nonlinear
stress-strain model to undisturbed soils under cyclic
loading," Shimizu Research Bulletin, No. 3, Tokyo,
Japan, March.
29) Silver, M. L. and Seed, H. B. (1971): "Deformation
characteristics of sands under cyclic loading," J. of
SMFD, Proc. of ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM8, pp. 1081-
1098.
30) Sherif, M. A. and Ishibashi, I. (1976): "Dynamic
shear modulus for dry sands," J. of Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. GT 11,
pp. 1171-1184.
31) Sherif, M.A., Ishibashi, I. and Gaddeh, A. H. (1977):
"Damping ratio for dry sands," Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 103,
No. GT 7, pp. 743-756.
32) Tatsuoka, F., Iwasaki, T. and Takagi, Y. (1978):
"Histeretic damping of sand under cyclic loading and
its relation to shear modulus," Soils and Founda-
191
tions, JSSMFE, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 25-40.
33) Tatsuoka, F., Iwasaki, T., Yoshida, S., Fukushima,
S. and Sudo, H. (1979): "Shear modulus and damp-
ing by drained tests on clean sand specimens
reconstituted by various method," Soils and Founda-
tions, JSSMFE, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 39-54.
34) Tatsuoka, F., Iwasaki, T. and Sudo, H. (1979):
"Stress conditions and stress histories affecting shear
modulus and damping of sand under cyclic loading,"
Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, Vol. 19, No.2, pp.
29-43.
35) Uchida, K., Sawada, T. and Hasegawa, T. (1980):
"Dynamic properties of sand subjected to initial
shear stress," Proc. of International Symposium on
Soils under Cyclic and Transient Loading, Swansen,
United Kingdom, pp. 121-132.
36) Vucetic, M. and Dobry, R. (1991): "Effect 9f soil
plasticity on cyclic response," Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 1,
pp. 89-107.
NII-Electronic Library Service