International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

A correction to damping ratio for

hyperbolic–hysteretic model for clayey soil

P Subramaniam & S Banerjee

To cite this article: P Subramaniam & S Banerjee (2013) A correction to damping ratio for
hyperbolic–hysteretic model for clayey soil, International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 7:2,
124-129, DOI: 10.1179/1938636213Z.00000000025

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1179/1938636213Z.00000000025

Published online: 12 Nov 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 114

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20
 A correction to damping ratio for hyperbolic–
hysteretic model for clayey soil
P. Subramaniam1 and S. Banerjee*2
For clayey soils, the shear modulus and damping ratio are perhaps the two most common
parameters considered in dynamic soil behavior characterization. It is well known that under cyclic
loading, soil behaves hysteretically in the stress–strain plane. Several mathematical models were
proposed to simulate the soil behavior under the cyclic loading conditions. For most of such models,
Masing rule is often used to define the unloading–reloading behavior of stress–strain loops. However,
it was also noted by many researchers that the framework of Masing rule tends to overpredict the
damping ratio at moderate to high strain range. The present paper deals with a hyperbolic–hysteretic
undrained soil model based on Masing rule. First, the efficacy of the model to predict the variation of
shear modulus and damping ratio for a wide strain range was examined. Second, a simple correction
for the calculation of damping ratio was introduced. Finally, the corrected damping ratios for various
types of soils with varying plasticity index were compared with published experimental results. Good
agreement was obtained between the computed and experimental results for a wide range of strains
and plasticity index.
Keywords: Shear modulus, Damping ratio, Masing rule, Damping correction

Introduction
It is well known that the mechanical behavior of natural
soil under dynamic loading, such as sea waves, earth-
quakes, and traffic loading differs significantly from those
under static or quasi-static loading. For clayey soils, the
shear modulus G and the damping ratio D are perhaps the
two most common parameters considered in dynamic soil
behavior characterization. Extensive studies have, there-
fore, been made to investigate those parameters using
laboratory tests, such as cyclic triaxial tests, resonant
column tests, and cyclic direct shear tests. For instance,
variation in modulus and damping ratio with strain has
been reported for various soils such as dry or saturated
Toyoura sand (Kokusho, 1980), Fujisawa sand (Ishihara,
1996), San Francisco sand and normally consolidated San
Francisco Bay Mud (Hardin and Drnevich, 1972),
Venezuelan clay (Vucetic and Dobry, 1991), and Israeli
Dead Sea soft clay (Puzrin et al., 1995). In addition, these
variations have also been correlated to index properties,
such as the plasticity index for clays and the relative
density for sands (Vucetic and Dobry, 1991; Ishihara,
1
Geotechnical Engineering Division, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai 600036, India
*Corresponding author, email subhadeep@iitm.ac.in
1996). From all those studies it was found that at very
small strains, shear modulus is almost constant, often
termed as small strain shear modulus or maximum shear
modulus Gmax. In the medium strain level the shear
modulus decreases significantly over a range of strains. In
this regime, the soil behavior is hysteretic, indicating
limited plasticity already exists, even though the yield
locus is not yet reached. Within this range of strain, G can
drop by as much as two orders of magnitude (~100 times).
Finally, at a very high strain, large scale yielding occurs
and elastoplasticity starts to dominate soil behavior. On
the other hand, the conventional way of looking at the
damping properties of soil is to use damping ratio
calculated as a ratio between the area of the hysteretic
stress–strain loop and the maximum energy stored in a
cycle. Unlike shear modulus, as reported in numerous
studies, the damping ratios increase with strain level,
forming an S shaped curve.
Several mathematical models (Idriss et al., 1978; Rao
and Panda, 1998; Dawson, 2011) were proposed to
simulate the soil behavior under the cyclic loading
conditions. For most of such models, Masing rule
(Masing, 1926) is often used to define the unloading–
reloading behavior of stress–strain loops. However, it was
also noted by many researchers that the framework of
Masing rule tends to overpredict the damping ratio at
moderate to a high strain range (Romo and Shelley, 1996;
Darendeli, 2001; Stewart and Kwok, 2008).

ß 2013 W. S. Maney & Son Ltd

Received 13 April 2012; accepted 7 June 2012 International Journal of
124 DOI 10.1179/1938636213Z.00000000025 Geotechnical Engineering 2013 VOL 7 NO 2
 Subramaniam and Banerjee
The present paper deals with a hyperbolic–hysteretic
undrained soil model based on Masing rule. First, the
efficacy of the model to predict the variation of shear
modulus and damping ratio for a wide strain range will be
examined. Second, a simple correction for the calculation
of damping ratio will be introduced. Finally, the corrected
damping ratios for various types of soils with varying
plasticity index will be compared with published experi-
mental results.
Hyperbolic–hysteretic soil constitutive
model
The model proposed herein encompasses the concepts of
small strain non-linearity (Dasari, 1996; Puzrin and
Burland, 1998) and hysteretic stress–strain behavior
(Pyke, 1979; Liu and Ling, 2006). The non-linear elasticity
was modeled by varying the shear and bulk moduli as a
function of the mean effective stress, the overconsolidation
ratio, and the corresponding strain increment since the last
strain reversal (Viggiani and Atkinson, 1995; Dasari,
1996). The hysteretic stress–strain behavior for unloading
and reloading is modeled using the Masing rule (Masing,
1926).
Backbone curve
The basic stress–strain curve was described using a
hyperbolic relationship of the form of equation (1)
(Nasim, 1999)
Gmax
q~qf { (1)
RzR2 es
where q is the deviator stress, es is the generalized shear
strain, and R is a modulus ratio given as
Gmax
R~ (2)
qf
where qf is the deviator stress at failure and maximum
shear modulus Gmax for clay is taken as (Viggiani and
Atkinson, 1995)
:
Gmax ~1964ðp’Þ0 653 (3)
where p9 is the mean effective stress.
Modeling hysteretic behavior of soils: Masing’s
rules
In this study, Masing’s rule (1926) was adopted to model
the hysteretic behavior of the soil during the unloading
and reloading phases of each load cycle. Accordingly, the
shapes of the unloading and reloading curves are similar
to that of the backbone curve, except that the scale is
enlarged by a factor of 2 and the shear modulus on each
loading reversal assumes a value equal to the initial
tangent modulus of the initial loading (backbone) curve.
Accordingly, the unloading and reloading phases of each
loading cycle can be given as equations (4) and (5)
respectively
des Gmax
qunload ~qul{1 z (4)
1z½Gmax ðer1 {es Þ=2qf 2
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
A correction to damping ratio for hyperbolic–hysteretic model
des Gmax
qreload ~qrl{1 z (5)
1z½Gmax ðer1 {es Þ=2qf 2
In the current constitutive relationship, the point of
loading reversal was identified using Dasari’s (Dasari,
1996) approach as follows
X Y
Reversal angle h~cos{1  1=2  1=2 (6)
X X Y Y
where X is strain increments for all six strain components
between (i21)th step and (i22)th step and Y is strain
increment for all six strain components between ith step
and (i21)th step
Accordingly, if the reversal angle h computed from
equation (6) is .90u, stress path reversal is deemed to have
occurred.
Comparison with element test results
The following sections evaluate the performance of the
proposed constitutive model by validating the computed
results with the experimental findings. In this study, strain
controlled cyclic triaxial tests and resonant column test
were carried out on 38 mm samples of kaolin clay to
obtain modulus values and damping ratios for shear
strains ranging from 1023 to 1%. A confining pressure of
200 kPa was applied for all the tests prior to cyclic
shearing. Cyclic testing was carried out for six different
frequencies ranging from 0?05 to 1?5 Hz.
Stress–strain loops
Figure 1a shows the measured and computed stress–strain
loop for test, in which a specimen was subjected to cyclic
shearing of constant strain amplitude 1?4% and loading
frequency of 1 Hz. As shown in this figure, despite a little
overestimate at the peak tension, the hyperbolic–hysteretic
model generally predicts the peak stresses to a reasonable
extent. However, this figure also shows that the area
enclosed by the stress–strain loop as observed in experi-
mental result was relatively smaller than that obtained
from the proposed model.
Figure 1b and c shows similar comparisons of the
measured and computed stress–strain loops for cyclic tests
of constant strain amplitudes of 0?8 and 0?26% respec-
tively. It also indicates that for smaller strains, unlike the
previous case, the size of the loop computed from
hyperbolic–hysteretic model matches better with the
experimental results.
Modulus reduction curve
The secant shear modulus at the point of load reversal can
be given as
qr
G~ (7)
er
where qr is the deviator stress at load reversal point and er
is the reference strain
The modulus reduction curve, derived from equa-
tions (1) and (7), can be represented as equation (8)
2013 VOL 7 NO 2 125
Subramaniam and Banerjee A correction to damping ratio for hyperbolic–hysteretic model

the same figure are the modulus reduction curves from

previous studies, as well as the laboratory cyclic triaxial
and resonant column tests conducted in the present study.
The back-calculated modulus reduction curve from the
present numerical analyses exhibits the typical reverse S
shaped trend. For strains between 0?01 and 1%, the
hyperbolic–hysteretic model appears to slightly over-
predict the (G/Gmax) ratios. However, the computed curve
does fall within the range covered by the previous data.

Damping ratio
According to Ishihara (1996), the area of hysteresis loop
can be expressed as
2e 3
ðr
DW ~84 f(e)de{W 5 (9)
0

where W is the energy stored in the loading phase

1
W ~ er f(er ) (10)
2
where f(e) describes the basic stress strain relationship
given by equation (1).
Hence, the damping ratio is given by
2 Ðer 3
2 f(e)de
DW 26 0 7
D~ ~ 6 4 {175 (11)
4pW p er f(er )

By substituting f(e) as q from equation (1), D can be

expressed as
   
2 2qf er { 2Gmax =R2 lnð1zRer Þ
Dmasing ~ {1 (12)
p er ½qf {Gmax =ðRzR2 er Þ
where R5Gmax/qf.
The damping response given by equation (12) is
graphically plotted on Fig. 2b, together with the present
experimental data and previously published damping
curves from other researchers. The results indicate that,
for almost entire strain range, the proposed model
overpredicts the strain dependent damping characteristics
of clay. Such general overprediction of damping ratio is
also noted by Ishihara (1996).

Damping ratio correction

a strain amplitude51?4%; b strain amplitude50?8%; c
strain amplitude50?26%
1 Comparison of computed and experimental stress–strain
loops for cyclic triaxial tests
G 1
~ (8)
Gmax (1zRer )
The reduction curve, shown in equation (8), is plotted for
different strain amplitudes in Fig. 2a. The continuous line
in Fig. 2a represents the computed trend of the modulus
reduction ratio (G/Gmax) for different strain levels asso-
ciated with the initial backbone curve. Also reproduced in
The foregoing discussion suggests that, the hyperbolic–
hysteretic model with Masing rule, though can predict the
modulus reduction to a reasonable extent, tend to over-
predict the damping ratio. Romo and Ovando-Shelley
(1996) proposed two correction parameters for damping
ratio, based on plasticity index and relative consistency.
The model also requires the maximum damping ratio as an
additional input. However, the maximum damping ratio,
which depends on the cyclic triaxial tests involving large
shear strain amplitude, is not a readily available para-
meter. Darendeli (2001) developed a set of equations to
predict the damping ratio based on Masing rule. However,
the equations were very complex and were not validated
for wide range of strains and plasticity index. Lee and

126 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2013 VOL 7 NO 2

 Subramaniam and Banerjee
2 Comparison of computed and experimental a modulus reduction and b damping ratios varying with shear strain
Sheu (2007) also developed an expression for damping
ratio for Taipei silty clay based on Ramberg-Osgood type
backbone curve. Again, the application of the model was
limited as it was not tested for different types of soils.
Correction parameters
In the present study, the corrected damping ratio is
expressed as a function of modulus reduction and
plasticity index. The effects of confining pressures and
loading cycles on damping ratio were not considered
(Ishihara, 1996). Though the confining pressure plays a
major role on the damping ratio of cohessionless material,
several past studies suggest that the effect of confining
pressure on the damping ratio is negligibly small for
cohesive soil (Kim and Novak, 1981; Kokusho et al., 1982;
Towhata, 2008). On the other hand, the effect of loading
cycles on damping ratio is not conclusive. Some of the
researchers reported minor decrease in the damping ratio
with the decrease in number of cycles (Cavallaro et al.,
2003; Lee and Sheu, 2007). In contrast, Dobry and Vucetic
(1987) suggested that the effect of number of cycles is not
significant at the moderate strain level.
The corrected damping ratio can be expressed in the
form of equation (13)
Dcorrected ~Dmin zCDoriginal (13)
The terms present in equation (13) are as follows. The
constant minimum damping ratio that clay can posses
under a very small strain, is termed as Dmin. The general
trend for Fig. 2a and b suggests that, for strain amplitudes
less than 0?001%, the curves for modulus degradation and
damping ratio become almost horizontal. From Fig. 2b,
Dmin was found to be ~0?9%. However, the effect of Dmin
at higher strains was found to be negligible.
The correction factor C depends on modulus reduction
and plasticity index and can be defined as equation (14)
 log B
G corrected damping ratio matches reasonably well with the
C~A (14)
Gmax
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
A correction to damping ratio for hyperbolic–hysteretic model
where G/Gmax is the modulus reduction at a specified strain
level and the parameters A and B are the functions of
plasticity index PI.
Vucetic and Dobry (1991) presented sets of design curves
for variation of modulus reduction and damping ratios with
strain amplitudes for different plasticity index. These well
established data sets were used to derive the expressions for
parameters A and B. The expressions for A and B, as
obtained from the regression analysis, are as follows
A~0:056z0:3 exp({0:023PI) (15)
log B~{0:004PI (16)
Figure 3 shows the variations of parameters A and B with
plasticity index PI. It indicates that both the parameters
reduce with plasticity index, with respective maximum
values of 0?35 and 0.
Validation of proposed correction
The corrected and original damping ratios as obtained
from equations (13)–(16) are graphically plotted in Fig. 4,
along with the present experimental data and previously
published damping curves from other researchers. It
shows that the corrected damping ratios fall well within
the range of experimental results.
Figure 5a shows the variations in damping ratio with
respect to plasticity index. For comparison, the design
curves corresponding to PI of 15, 50, and 100% were
chosen from Vucetic and Dobry (1991). It is evident from
the figure that for all three PI, the corrected damping
ratios are reasonably matching with the trends shown by
Vucetic and Dobry (1991).
Figure 5b shows the comparison of corrected damping
ratio for two extreme PI of 0 and 200%. The results
indicate that for a low PI of 0%, the corrected damping
ratio matches quite closely with the observations on
Toyoura sand reported by Ishihara (1996). Furthermore,
this figure also shows that for very high PI (200%), the
published trend.
2013 VOL 7 NO 2 127
Subramaniam and Banerjee A correction to damping ratio for hyperbolic–hysteretic model

3 Variation of parameters a A and b log B with plasticity index

Discussion and conclusion

In this paper, a simplified hyperbolic–hysteretic model was
proposed for cyclic loading on remoulded soft clay. Good
agreement was obtained between the computed and
experimental results. The model with damping correction
has several advantages. First, the corrected damping ratios
matched reasonably well with the various experimental
values over the wide range of plasticity index. Second, only
two additional parameters required for damping correc-
tion and both the parameters A and B depend on plasticity
index and modulus degradation computed from the
model. However, the proposed model is based on the
total stress approach and hence it is only applicable for
undrained loadings.

References
Cavallaro, A., Lanzo, G., Pagliaroli, A., Maugeri, M. and Lo Presti,
4 Comparison of computed and experimental damping D. C. F. 2003 A comparative study on shear modulus and damping
ratios after applying damping correction ratio of cohesive soil from laboratory tests, Proc. Int. Conf. on

5 Comparison of computed and Vucetic’s results (Vucetic and Dobry, 1991) for a PI515%, 50%, 100% and b PI50, 200%
along with results on Toyoura sand (Ishihara, 1996)

128 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2013 VOL 7 NO 2

 Subramaniam and Banerjee
‘‘Deformation characteristics of geomaterials,’’ 257–265, Lyon,
Rotterdam, Pays-Bas, Balkema.
Darendeli, M. B. 2001. Development of a new family of normalized
modulus reduction and material damping curves, PhD thesis, The
University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA.
Dasari, G. R. 1996. Modeling of the variation of soil stiffness during
sequential construction, PhD thesis, Cambridge University,
Cambridge, UK.
Dawson, E. M. 2011. A parallel Iwan model for 3D cyclic loading of
cohesive materials, Proc. 2nd Int. FLAC/DEM Symp. ’11,
Melbourne, Australia, 737–744.
Dobry, R. and Vucetic, M. 1987. State of the art report: dynamic
properties and response of soft clay deposits, Proc. Int. Symp.
Geotechn. Eng. Soft Soils, 2, 51– 87.
Hardin, B. O. and Drnevich, V. P. 1972. Shear modulus and damping in
soils: design equations and curves, J. Soil Mech. Found., 98, 667–
692.
Idriss, I. M., Dobry, R., Doyle, E. H. and Singh, R. D. 1978. Nonlinear
behaviour of soft clays during cyclic loading conditions, J. Geotech.
Eng. Div. ASCE, 104, 1427–1447.
Ishihara, K. 1996. Soil behavior in earthquake geotechnics, Oxford,
Clarendon Press.
Kim, T. C. and Novak, M. 1981. Dynamic properties of some cohesive
soils of Ontario, Can. Geotechn. J., 18, 371–389.
Kokusho, T. 1980. Cyclic triaxial test of dynamic soil properties for wide
strain range, Soils Found., 20, (2), 45–60.
Kokusho, T., Yoshida, Y. and Esashi, Y. 1982. Dynamic properties of
soft clays for wide strain range, Soils Found., 22, 1–18.
Lee, C. J. and Sheu, S. F. 2007. The stiffness degradation and damping
ratio evolution of Taipei Silty Clay under cyclic straining, Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Eng., 27, 730–740.
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
A correction to damping ratio for hyperbolic–hysteretic model
Liu, H. and Ling, H. I. 2006. Modeling cyclic behavior of geosynthetics
using mathematical functions combined with Masing rule and
bounding surface plasticity, Geosynth. Int., 13, (6), 234–245.
Masing, G. 1926. Eigenspannungen und Verfestigung beim Messing,
Proc. 2nd Int. Cong. on ‘‘Applied mechanics,’’ Sertember, Zurich,
Switzerland, 332–335.
Nasim, A. S. M. 1999. Numerical modeling of soil profile and behaviour
in deep excavation analyses, MEng Thesis, National University of
Singapore, Singapore.
Puzrin, A. M. and Burland, J. B. 1998. Non-linear model of small-strain
behaviour of soils, Geotechnique, 48, (2), 217–233.
Puzrin, A. M., Frydman, S. and Talesnick, M. 1995. Normalising
degrading behaviour of soft clay under cyclic simple shear loading,
J. Geotech. Eng. Div. ASCE, 121, (12), 836–843.
Pyke, R. M. 1979. Nonlinear soil models for irregular cyclic loadings,
J. Geotech. Eng. Div. ASCE, 105, (6), 715–726.
Rao, S. N. and Panda, A. P. 1998. Non-linear analysis of undrained cyclic
strength of soft marine clay, Ocean Eng., 26, (3), 241–253.
Romo, M. P. and Ovando-Shelley, E. 1996. Modelling the dynamic
behaviour of Mexican clays, Proc. 11th World Conf. on
‘‘Earthquake engineering,’’ June, Acapulco, Mexico, 1024.
Stewart, J. P. and Kwok, A. O. L. 2008. Nonlinear seismic ground
response analysis: code usage protocols and verification against
vertical array data, Geotech. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., GSP 181,
1–24.
Towhata, I. 2008. Geotechnical earthquake engineering, Berlin,
Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag.
Viggiani, G. and Atkinson, J. H. 1995. Stiffness of fine-grained soils at
very small strains, Geotechnique, 45, (2), 249–265.
Vucetic, M. and Dobry, R. 1991. Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic
response, J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE, 117, (1), 89–107.
2013 VOL 7 NO 2 129