Dynamic Characterization of Soils

CE507L– Soil Dynamics and Geotechnical

Earthquake Engineering

Earthquake Induced Failures

 Structure or sub-structure
(foundation??)
 Underlying soil plays a key role in
overall stability of a structure
 Site response
Million Dollar Bridge
 Liquefaction potential (Bhattacharya et al. 2013)

Foundation failure (NISEE, 2016) Tubul bridge collapse (Yashinsky et al 2010)

 Structure

Surface Waves

Soil
Body
Waves

Fault EQ
Rupture
Geologic Strata

Dynamic
characterization of
soils

Modified after Krishna et al. (2014)

Strength of cyclically loaded soils

 Effect of cyclic loading on limiting strength is very important,

among others, in problems like:
 Slope stability
 Foundation performance
 Retaining wall behavior
 Soil strength behaviour
 Drained condition??
 Undrained condition??
 Earthquake loading/seismic loading is generally applied very rapidly
 UNDRAINED condition
 Effect of cyclic loading on the undrained shear strength of cohesive
soils.
 For cohesionless soils, the strength is inextricably tied to
liquefaction.
Definition of failure

 Shear strength of an element of soil:

 Defined as “The shear stress mobilized at the point of failure”
 But failure can be defined in many ways!!!
 Failure!!!
 Deformations that exceed some serviceability limit
 Often in terms of a limiting strain
 An element of soil
under undrained
condition
Under anisotropic

stress conditions
 Cyclic shear stress
under stress
controlled conditions
produces a cyclic
shear strain but also
an increase in
average shear strain
Strength defined in terms of limiting values of avg or cyc

 Strength defined in terms of limiting values of avg or cyc or some combination of

the two
 The available monotonic loading strength after cyclic loading may
also of interest
 The measures of strength of a cyclically loaded soils:
 The ‘Cyclic strength’ based on limiting values of cyclic and/or average
strain during cyclic loading
 The soil may not actually be in a state of failure as defined by effective stress
conditions
 The ‘Monotonic strength’
 Ultimate strength that can be mobilzed after the cyclic loading has ended
Cyclic strength
 Levels of cyclic and permanent deformations are of interest
 Cyclic strength depends on relation between cyc and ave
 When ave is low so is the ave; cyc may be large if cyc is large
 On the other hand, ave and associated ave may be large, when cyc is small

 When ave = 0
 Failure defined by cyc
 Generally 3 %
 The cyclic strength ratio (CSR)=
 Decreases with increasing number of cycles

 At low CSR values

 No failure
 failure strain never be reached
 This limiting CSR
 Critical Level of Repeated Loading
(CLRL)
 Increases with soil plasticity
 Varies from 0.05 to 0.55

 When ave > 0

 Both ave & cyc depend on ave & cyc
 And on No. cycles
Post cyclic loading - Monotonic strength

 Very useful in evaluating the static stability of slopes,

retaining walls, foundations after the earthquake shaking
 This post cyclic shaking strength must reflect any affects
of cyclic loading
 Ultimate undrained strength of a saturated soil depends
on
 Void ratio and its structure
 For monotonic strength after cyclic loading
 Extent of change in void ratio, structural disturbance, level of
cyclic strain, no of cycles are to be considered.

Effect of peak cyclic strain on the monotonic

strength after cyclic loading

 Ultimate strength is decreased

by 10 % when strain ratio is
less than 0.5
 At higher strain ratios the
decrease in strength is more
dramatic
Dynamic/Seismic loading

Stress-strain behavior
 More complex to understand the mechanical behavior of
soils
 Even under static conditions
 Different models can be used
 Three broad classes of soil models
 Equivalent linear model
 Cyclic nonlinear model
 Advanced constitutive model
 Equivalent Linear Model

Equivalent Linear Model

 Consider a typical soil subjected to

symmetric-cyclic loading
 Might exhibit a typical hysteresis loop
 Hysteresis loop can be described in
two ways
 Actual path of loop
 Parameters that describe its general
shape
  Loop’s two important characteristics
 Inclination – depends on stiffness
 At any point, tangential shear modulus Gtan
 Average over entire loop, secant shear modulus, Gsec

 Breadth – related to area

 A measure of energy dissipation, described by damping ratio
Where:
WD 1 Aloop WD = Dissipated energy
  * (Area of loop)
4Ws 2 G 2 Ws = Max. strain energy
(Area of shaded triangle)

Gsec and  are often referred as

Equivalent Linear Parameters

Shear modulus determination:

 Soil stiffness is influenced by
 Cyclic strain amplitude
 At low strain amplitudes Gsec is high
 At high strain amplitudes Gsec is Low

 Void ratio
 Mean principal effective stress
 Plasticity index
 OCR
 Number of loading cycles
 Stiffness decreases as the strain amplitude increases
Backbone Curve (or skeleton)
 The locus of points corresponding to the ‘tips’ of hysteresis loop of
various shear strain amplitudes
 At 0 strain amplitude (Its slope at origin)
 largest value of shear modulus Gmax
 At any other strain levels, c
 the Shear modulus is Gsec
 Modulus Ratio – Gsec/Gmax
 At greater strain amplitudes, the modulus ratio drops to a value
less than one (<1)
 Modulus Reduction curve
 Graphical representation of the variation of modulus ratio with
shear strain
Characterization of stiffness of a soil
element require:
1) Gmax
2) The manner in which the modulus
ratio varies with shear strain and
other parameters

Maximum Shear Modulus, Gmax

 From many seismic geophysical tests

 Since strain levels are less than 3 x10-4 %

 When no shear wave velocity measurements use empirical

relations
 with laboratory test data
 And other field test data
 For example:

k = OCR exponent 0 to 0.5 depends on

PI (0 to 100)
n = Stress exponent = 0.5
m = mean principal effective stress
(1 +2 +3)/3
m & pa should be of same units
 For example (laboratory test data):

k = OCR exponent 0 to 0.5 depends on

PI (0 to 100)
n = Stress exponent = 0.5
m = mean principal effective stress
(1 +2 +3)/3
m & pa should be of same units

Other correlations
From other in situ tests
 Modulus reduction , G/Gmax

 Mainly influenced by soil plasticity

PI = 0, commonly
used for Sands

 Modulus reduction behavior also influenced by eff. Confining

pressure, especially for low plasticity soils
Damping Ratio

 Damping ratio is never zero (Though theoretically there should be

no dissipation of energy below elastic threshold cyclic strains)
 Breadth of hysteresis loop increase with increasing cyclic strain
amplitude

PI = 0, commonly used
  is low for high plasticity for coarse grained soil
soils than low plasticity
soils
 Also influenced by eff.
Confining pressure
 Empirical relation as
modulus reduction

Effect of environmental and loading conditions for NC and

moderately OC soils
Limitations of equivalent model

 It is only an approximation of the actual non-linear

behavior of soil
 It can’t be directly used for problems involving permanent
deformation or failure
 The model implies that strain will always return to zero
after cyclic loading
 A linear material has no limiting strength –failure cant occur

Cyclic Non-Linear Model

Cyclic Nonlinear Models

 More accurate, follows actual stress-strain path during cyclic loading

 Able to represent
 Shear strength of soil
 Pore water pressure
 Changes in effective stress
 A non-linear model characterized by
 Backbone curve
 A series of rules that govern unloading-reloading behavior, stiffness degradation and
other effects
 Many models have been developed
 Simplest models
 Relatively simple backbone curve and only a few basic rules
 Complex models
 Many more rules for better representation of irregular loading, densification, pore pressure
generation

Back bone curve functions

 The shape of BBC is related to two parameters

 The initial (low-strain) stiffness
 The Shear strength (high-strain) of soil
 A simple hyperbolic representation:

 Rules:
 For initial loading, the stress-strain curve follows the BBC
 If a stress reversal occurs at (r, r), stress-strain curve follows a path given by:

 If unloading-reloading (U-R) curve exceeds max past strain( > r) and intersects the
BBC it follows the original BBC, still next stress reversal
 If an U-R curve crosses an U-R curve of previous cycle, the stress-strain curve
follows that previous cycle
Models that follow the above four rules called Extended Masing models
Extended Masing models

 Note that these models doesn't require the shear strain to be ‘0’ when the shear stress is ‘0’
 Other example models
 Finn (1970), Pyke(1979), Vucetic (1990)

Advanced constitutive models

 Use principles of Mechanics
 Generally require
 Yield surface
 That describes the limiting stress conditions
 Hardening law
 Describes changes in the size and shape of yield surface as plastic deformation
occurs
 Flow rule
 Relates the plastic strain increments to incremental stresses
 Examples:
 Cam-clay (Roscoe and Schofield 1963)
 Desai and Siriwardane (1984)
 Lade (1988) and Wood (1991)

Refer, Kramer (1996)

 Dynamic Soil Properties

Dynamic Soil Properties

 Soil properties that influence wave
propagation and other low-strain
phenomenon Strain dependent dynamic
 Shear wave velocity (Vs): Shear wave velocity in soil properties
soil is measured from field/laboratory studies.
 Shear modulus (G): ratio of shear stress to shear
strain
 Gmax –Linear elastic response
 G/Gmax – Nonlinear response
 Damping ratio (): ratio of actual damping
coefficient to the critical damping coefficient.
 Poisson’s ratio (): ratio of lateral strain to
longitudinal strain
 Density

Dynamic elastic constants

• Coefficients of elastic uniform compression and shear
• Coefficients of elastic non-uniform compression and shear
Different strain conditions in problems involving
dynamic loading
 Low strain range (< 0.001% or 10-3%)
 Elastic theory applicable
 Generally associated with wave propagation problems
 Foundation of machines
 High Strain range ( 0.01% to 0.1% & above 5%)
 Dynamic behaviour is non linear
 Starts experiencing permanent deformations (plastic)
 Reaches unstable condition
 Intermediate strain levels (~10-2%)
 Response starts beginning non-linear

Liquefaction potential (Seed & Lee, 1966)

 Pore pressure generation and cyclic stress ratio (CSR)
Supplementary soil tests
 Determination of in-situ density and void ratio
 Grain size analysis and soil classification tests
 Shear strength tests
 Plate load tests

Significance of Dynamic Soil Characterization

 Applications in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering

 Site classification studies
 Seismic site response studies involving linear elastic, equivalent linear and
nonlinear framework
 Dynamic analysis of surface foundations – elastic and nonlinear soil
behavior
 Dynamic analysis of deep foundations such as piles and caissons – elastic
and nonlinear soil behavior
 Seismic response of retaining walls
 Seismic slope stability analysis
 Liquefaction assessment

(Kramer, 1996)
Field and Laboratory Methods for
Determining Shear Modulus

Measurement of Dynamic Properties of Soils

In-situ Laboratory
Advantage : o Useful when the responses under controlled
conditions
State of stress is o Need to have good quality undisturbed
inherently included samples
in the procedure o Undisturbed samples for loose soils -
Non invasive
impossible in-situ structure – disturbed
SASW (Gucunski 1991) MASW o need to confine and consolidate the soil
(Park et al 1999) sample to the state of stress to replicate field
Invasive – Seismic borehole tests conditions
 Low strain tests
Cross-hole, down-hole and up-hole  Bender element (Shirley & Hampton, 1977)
 Stoke and Woods (1972)  Resonant column (Hardin 1970; ASTM D4015)
 High strain tests
 Dynamic simple shear (Peacock & Seed, 1968)
 Cyclic triaxial (Seed & Lee, 1966)
 Cyclic torsional shear (Ishihara & Li, 1972)
 Selection of type of equipment/method depends on
 Range of strain of interest
 Problem to be analyzed at hand

EXPERIMENTAL
DETERMINATION OF DYNAMIC
SOIL PROPERTIES- Lab Tests
 Element tests Depends on the ability to replicate initial &
 Model tests loading condition of the problem of interest

 No laboratory test can represent all possible stress& strain

paths with general rotation of principal stress axes
 Dynamic soil properties are influenced by many factors
 Density, void ratio, stress conditions,
 Other factors
 Soil fabric/structure, age, stress strain history cementation
 Sampling is very important
 High quality undisturbed samples must be obtained as per the type
of soil
 Cohesive soils
 Cohesionless soils

 Low strain element tests

 Resonant column test
 Ultrasonic pulse test
 Bender element test
 High strain level tests
 Cyclic triaxial tests
 Cyclic simple direct shear test etc.
Laboratory Experiments

Axial LVDTs

Radial LVDT
Dynamic triaxial setup On-sample LVDT

Resonant column test method

 Most commonly used For low-strain properties

 Solid or hollow cylindrical specimens
 Subjected to harmonic torsional or axial loading
 By an electromagnetic loading system
 Frequency & amplitude
can be controlled
 Random noise& impulse
loading
Resonant Column test
 The basic principle
 to excite one end of a confined cylindrical soil specimen in a
fundamental mode of vibration by means of torsional or longitudinal
excitation
 Once the fundamental mode of resonance frequency is established,
 measurements are made
 resonance frequency and

 amplitude of vibration

 wave propagation velocities and strain amplitudes are calculated using

the theory of elasticity from the measured values
 Test provides laboratory values of dynamic moduli and damping
ratio.
 After specimen has been prepared & consolidated, cyclic
loading is applied
 Frequency increased from low to resonant frequency
gradually
 Fundamental frequency
 The lowest frequency at which the response is locally maximized
 Function of low-strain stiffness of soil, geometry of specimen,
and certain properties of resonant apparatus
  There are several versions of the resonant column device. The most
commonly used conditions at the ends are shown below (for
torsional mode):

Driving force is applied on the top &

Excited at the bottom and the response is response pickup is also placed on the top
picked up at the top (velocity or acceleration)

 Based on the assumed system with a single degree of

freedom the relevant formulas for torsional and axial
loading, taking into account the additional mass of the top
cap and the moving parts of the driving unit, G is
computed.
Torsional excitation

Applied torque

Inertial torque

I= mass polar MI of the

specimen
I0= mass polar MI of the
torsional loading system

For longitudinal Obtain fn or n from

experiment and
excitation
calculate Vs
Resonant Column (RC) Tests
 Used for determination of shear modulus and damping ratio from low to
intermediate strain range (0.001% to 0.1%) – Hardin (1970); ASTM D4015
 Principle – torsional or flexural vibration of a cylindrical specimen in resonance
(Richart et al. 1970)
f nz and CP 200

Fixed-free configuration of RC
90
 G m ax and CP
180

2f nz H
R eson ant freq uen cy, f n z (H z)

80
160
Vs 

G m a x (M P a)

140
70
120

1  A 
D    ln 1  60 100

 n   An1 
80
50
60

40 40
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Confining pressure, CP (kPa)

80 80 8
f nz and Voltage
G and Shear strain
70
D and Shear strain
R esonant frequency, f n z (H z)

70 6
S hear m odulus, G (M P a)

D am ping ratio, D (% )

60

50 60 4

40

50 2
30

20 40 0
1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1

Voltage (v) or shear strain (%)

 120
 
(a)
RC Tests – Typical Results 100
50 kPa

Shear modulus, G (MPa)

100 kPa
80 300 kPa
 Effect of shear strain & confining
pressure on shear stiffness 60

 Increase in γ decreases G due to loss of 40

particle contact
 Normalized shear modulus reduction 20 BP sand- 30% Rd
(G/Gmax) tends to increase with σ’m 1E-3 0.01 0.1

 Damping ratio reduces with increase Shear strain, 

in shear strain and CP

Dammala, P.K., Krishna, A.M., Bhattacharya, S., Nikitas, G. and Rouholamin, M.

(2017). Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 100, pp. 357- 370

Laboratory Tests
Low to Intermediate Strain Behavior – RC Tests
 Effect of shear strain & confining pressure on granular soils
 Damping ratio reduces with increase in shear strain and CP which can be
explained by the stress-strain response (hysteresis loop)
 Increase in strains increases the loop area – in turn increasing the damping ratio
 Increase in confining pressure reduces the induced strains and resulting damping
6 6

ratio 5
50 kPa
100 kPa
5

300 kPa
4 4

BP sand- 30% Rd 3 3 BG 30% Rd

BP 30% Rd
2 2

1 1

0 0
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1E-3 0.01 0.1
6 6

5 5
Damping ratio (%)

4 4

BP 50% Rd
3 3
BG 50% Rd
2 2

1 1

0 0
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1E-3 0.01 0.1
7 6

6
5
5
4
4 BG 70% Rd
BP 70% Rd 3
3

2
2

1 1

0 0
1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1
Shear strain (% )

Dammala et al (2017a)
Resonant column test-Limitations
 The test is basically a back analysis procedure.
 The output is not the response of the soil specimen itself,
but contains combined effects of the soil and its attached
apparatus.
 Great caution must be exercised in order to obtain reliable
data.
 The test is useful for obtaining data on dynamic properties
of soils within the range of shear strain less than about
5×10-2%

Laboratory Tests
Bender Element (BE) Tests
 Provides the low strain (strains≤0.0001) shear wave velocity (Vs) by the principle
of wave propagation (Shirley & Hampton 1977)
 Two piezoelectric bender elements are installed at each end of sample for
monitoring the shear waves (transmitter and receiver)

 Leff 
Vs   
 Ts 
2
 Leff 
Gmax  .Vs2    
 Ts 

3.0 300

5000 Source (Tx) signal 50 kPa

Travelling tim e (T ) Echo (Rx) signal
s 100 kPa
2.5
S hear w ave velocity (V s ), m /s

250
R eceiver signal, m V
S ource signal, m V

2.0

0 200
1.5

1.0
150

-5000 0.5

100
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 7 14 21 28 35
Tim e, mS Frequency, kHz
Bender element test

 Non-destructive, straightforward, and flexible method to

determine Gmax for a range of soils
 Bender elements
 Constructed by bonding
piezo electric materials
Together

 The voltage applied to their faces causes on to expand and other

contracts, causing the entire element to bend
 Similarly, a lateral deflection /disturbance of the bender element shall
produce voltage
 Positive voltage causes the element to bend one way, negative
voltage causes it to bend the other

 Dependent on the internal structure of the piezoelectric

materials p-or s-waves can be generated and registered.
 Elements generating s-waves are called bender elements
because of their shape of movement and penetrate a few
millimeters into the sample.
 Because the specimens are not disturbed during the tests
the piezoelectric elements are incorporated in various soil
testing devices, such as conventional triaxial devices,
oedometers and direct or simple shear devices.
 BE Test Results
 Tests were conducted on Brahmaputra sand (BP)
 Different relative densities (Rd) and confining pressures (σ’m )
 Increase in σ’m increases the Gmax at any given Rd
300

250
BP sand

200 R d =35%
R d =80%
G m ax , M P a

150

100

50

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000

Cell pressure, kPa

Dammala, P.K., and Krishna, A. M., (2019). Frontiers in Geotechnical Engineering, Developments in
Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 273 - 301
 Ultrasonic pulse test
 Ultrasonic transmitters and receivers are attached to platens that can be placed at
each end of a specimen
 Made of piezo electric materials

 Exhibit changes in dimensions when subjected to voltages across

their faces, and which produce voltage across their faces when
distorted
 High frequency electrical pulse is applied at transmitter
 Causes distortion and generates stress wave which travel to the other end
 The stress wave reached at the other end produce voltage pulse that can be
measured
 Accurate distance b/w the ends and the time difference b/w the voltage pulses helps
in getting wave propagating velocity
 Particularly used for very soft soils
 Seafloor sediments

 Can be conducted in the sampling tube

Cyclic Triaxial test

 The test device consists of the standard
triaxial testing equipment extended with a
cyclic axial loading unit.
 In some cases, the cell pressure is also
applied cyclically.
 Isotropic or anisotropic initial stress
conditions are possible.
 The stresses and strains measured in cyclic
triaxial tests can be used to obtain the shear
modulus and damping ratio.

 Both Stress controlled (ASTM D5311) and

strain controlled (ASTM D3999) tests can
be performed
 High strain dynamic soil properties as well
as liquefaction evaluation can be
determined
 Assessment of post liquefaction behavior of
sandy soil through multistage testing
 Cyclic traixial and resilient modulus
testing facility available at IIT Tirupati

Rotation of principal stress axis for vertically

propagating shear waves
Isotropic and Anisotropic stress conditions in cyclic
triaxial test

Strain controlled

 For evaluation of E and

Stress controlled

 Used for liquefaction studies

Typical results
 Dynamic loading
 Regular seismic excitations  Irregular seismic excitations
 Strain-controlled approach(ASTM  Stress-controlled
D3999) 20
10
Input deviator stress
'c = 100 kPa
 γ ranging from 0.01%-10%
0
-10 Bhuj motion (0.103g)

Deviatoric stress (kPa)

-20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
80
40
Strain

0
-40 Tezpur motion (0.36g)
-80
Time (sec) 150
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
100
 Stress-controlled approach (ASTM 50
0
D5311) -50
-100
-150
Kobe motion (0.834g)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
 CSR ranging from 0.05-0.4 Time (s)
150
acc. (g )
100
50 = × v × rd ;(Seed and Idriss,1971)
g
Stress

0
-50
-100
-150
Corresponding to Kobe motion (CSR = 0.75) rd  1 .0  0 .0 0 7 6 5 z ; fo r z  9 .1 5 m
Time (sec)

 Testing conditions rd  1 .1 7 4  0 .0 2 6 7 z ; fo r 9 .1 5  z  2 3 m
 Saturated and Dry acc . ( g )
 d  2  = 2  ×  v × rd
 Saturation by using CO2 g

 Parameters: N, γ, σʹc and Dr

Input and output of strain- and stress-controlled tests

Kumar, S.S., Krishna, A.M., and Dey, A. (2020). Geotechnical and Geological Engineering., Vol 38(2),
pp.1431-1450
 Hysteresis during cyclic loading
 Typical hysteresis loops during regular and irregular cyclic loading 50
50
20 CSR = 0.2 Tezpur motion (0.36g)
40 40
Dr = 30%
30

Shear stress (kPa)

30
10

Shear stress (kPa)

20
20
Shear stress (kPa)

10
0 10
0
0
-10 -10 'c = 100kPa
-10
-20 50 kPa
Dr = 60%
-20 -20 100 kPa
-30
 = 0.3% f = 1 Hz 150 kPa
-40 -30
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%)
Strain-controlled loading Stress-controlled loading Irregular loading
 Hysteresis loops during strain-controlled tests at different shear strains

 With the increase of shear strain the loops becomes gradually

asymmetric
 γ = 0.15%
 Hysteresis loop is used to evaluate the dynamic properties of soils

Evaluation of Dynamic Properties at high cyclic

strains
(a) (b)

Esec1  Esec 2
Esec   d /  
 d ,max   d ,min  Esec, a 
 max   min  2
G  Esec /[2(1   )]
Ga  Esec, a /[2(1   )]
  (1   )   (1   )
1 AL 1 AL ( o  a b  c  d )
D 
4 A D#  
 A1  A 2  A
 Use of Symmetrical Hysteresis Loop (SHL) is conventional approach to evaluate the
dynamic properties (ASTM D3999)
 Damping ratio is evaluated from the stored energy in 1st quadrant

 For Asymmetrical Hysteresis Loop (ASHL), since the stored energy is not equal in all
quadrants, damping ratio based on SHL methodology will be inaccurate
 ASHL methodology is proposed for proper estimation of dynamic properties

Kumar, S.S., Krishna, A.M., and Dey, A. (2017). Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engg., Vol 99, pp.157-167
Modulus reduction and damping ratio of DBS & SBS

 Shear modulus is not affected by saturation for N = 1

 For DBS, D# (based on ASHL) exceeds D (based on SHL) by 5-
70% within the shear strain range 0.045-7%

Kumar, S.S., Dey, A., and Krishna, A.M., (2018). Indian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 48(3), pp. 549-557

Laboratory Tests
CTX Tests – Liquefaction Test Results
 BP sand at 60% Rd – 100 kPa effective confining pressure

20
(a) 60% D r, 100 kPa
2.0 (b)
1.0
P o re w a te r p re s s u re ra tio

Axial strain
D eviato ric stress, kP a

1.5 PW P ratio
10
A x ia l s tra in , %

1.0
0

0.5
0.5
-10

0.0
-20

-0.5 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0 50 100 150 200 250
Number of cycles Number of cycles

20
(c) 10
(d)
D eviato ric stress, kP a

S h ear stress, kP a

10 5

0 0

-10 -5

-20 -10
-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 1 2
Dammala
3
et al (2019)
Axial strain, % Shear strain, %
 CTX Tests – Liquefaction Behavior
 Liquefaction behavior of BP sand at different Rd and CSR values is investigated
 Post liquefaction behavior through multistage CTX tests
1
0.9
0.8 Rd = 33% CSR = 0.15
Pore water pressure ratio, ru (%) 

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 Before testing
0 After liquefaction
0 2 4 6 8
Number of cycles

0.9 Rd=66% CSR=0.15

0.8

0.7

0.6
PWP Ratio

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Number of cycles

CTX Tests – Liquefaction Behavior

 Liquefaction resistance
 Increases with Rd
 Decreases with shear strain
 Decreases with CSR
0.35
Brahmaputra sand Rd=33%

Brahmaputra sand Rd=66%

0.3
Brahmaputra sand Rd=90%
Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1
1 10 100 1000
Number of cycles for initial liquefaction

Dammala et al (2019)
 Response of saturated cohesionless soil subjected
to irregular seismic excitations

Stress–strain
relationships:
a) Bhuj, b) Tezpur and c)
Kobe strong motions

Kumar, S.S., Dey, A., and Krishna, A.M., (2018). Natural Hazards, Vol. 93, pp. 509-529

Typical variation of G and ru with γ in irregular and

regular excitations
G (MPa) ru (Irregular); G (MPa) ru (Regular)
100 1.0
  Upper bound Lower bound 65% line
100 1.0 (1) No liquefaction zone
4
1
80 0.8
Shear m odulus, G (M Pa)

80 0.8 (2) Quasi-liquefaction  Liquefaction

Excess PW P ratio (r u )
Shear modulus (MPa)

Excess PWP ratio (ru)

zone zone (4)

60 0.6 60 
 0.6
3 G
2 

ru
40 0.4 40 CSR = 0.05-0.3 0.4
Dr = 30-90% Onset of
'c = 50-200 kPa liquefaction
20 0.2 , 65% line
20 zone (3) 0.2
2 3
1 4
0 0.0
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0 1
10 0 0.0
Shear strain (%) -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10
Shear strain (%)

Kumar, S.S., Dey, A., and Krishna, A.M., (2020). KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, DOI 10.1007/s12205-
020-0216-x
Cyclic simple shear test

 The cyclic simple shear test device

is most commonly used for
liquefaction testing
 It can apply seismic loads much
more accurately than the cyclic
triaixal test.
 A short cylindrical specimen is
restrained against lateral expansion.

 By applying cyclic horizontal shear stresses to the top or bottom

of the specimen, the test specimen is deformed in much the
same way as an element of soil subjected to vertically
propagating s-waves.
 Simple shear devices that control the vertical and horizontal
stresses independently are able to impose stresses other than
those corresponding to K0 conditions

Dynamic Simple Shear (DSS) Tests

 Used both for stress controlled and strain controlled tests
20

 Parameters of investigation (a)

R d =50%
 Shear strain (0.1% to 10%) 16
50 kPa
100 100 kPa
 Confining pressure BP_100kPa 12
200 kPa
G, MPa

N=10 cycles

50
8
S h ear stress (kP a)

0 4

0
-50 0.1 1 10

Shear strain, %
0.20
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
(b)
Shear strain (%)
R d =50%
0.15
50 50 kPa
100 kPa
(c) BP sand -Rd=50% 200 kPa
G/G max

0.10
c
40
50 kPa
Damping ratio (%)

100 kPa
0.05
200 kPa

30

0.00
0.1 1 10

Shear strain, %
20
Dammala et al. (2016)
10
0.1 1 10

Shear strain (%)

Cyclic Torsional Simple Shear Test

Cyclic torsional shear Test

 The cyclic torsional shear test works

with a torsional loading of a
cylindrical soil specimen.
 Isotropic and anisotropic initial
stresses are possible.
 can impose cyclic shear stresses on
horizontal planes with continuous
rotation of principal stress axes

 Torsional testing of soil specimens produce shear strains that

range from zero along the axis of the specimen to a
maximum value at the outer edge.
 To increase the radial uniformity of shear strains, testing
devices for hollow cylinder specimen are used.
 Comprehensive Data for G/Gmax and Damping
 Combined the G/Gmax and damping ratio data from the three tests
 Gmax from BE tests, G/Gmax from 0.001% to 0.1% from RC tests and the rest from
DSS tests
 Literature consistent trends observed
 High G/Gmax and low values of damping ratio observed compared to the
literature suggested range for sands
(a) BE+RC DSS
(b) BE+RC DSS
1.0 40

Seed & Idriss (1970) limits

0.8 Darendeli (2001) limits
30

D a m p in g ra tio , %
0.6
G /G m a x

20

0.4
400 kPa 25 kPa

10 400 kPa
25 kPa
0.2

Seed & Idriss (1970) limits

Darendeli (2001) limits
0
0.0 1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10
1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, %
Shear strain, %
Dammala, P.K., and Krishna, A.M., (2019). Frontiers in Geotechnical Engineering, Developments in Geotechnical
Engineering, pp. 273 - 301

Comprehensive Data for G/Gmax and Damping

Dammala, P.K., Kumar, S.S., Krishna, A.M., and Bhattacharya, S., (2019). Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 17, pp. 2899–2933
 Analytical Formulations

Empirical Relationship - Gmax

 BE and RC tests are considered for the empirical expressions on Gmax
 Hardin (1978) has been considered due to its dimensionless consistency and
successful validation to soils of even large void ratio
2000
BP & RC experimental data
Combined fit
A  ( Pa )  ( )
1 m ' m
Gmax  c

 0.3  0.7e2 
1600
Gmax. F(e)/Patm

Author/s Soil A value m 1200

Fit parameters
Hardin (1978) Clean sand 625 0.5
A = 588.69
Chung et al. (1984) Monterey No. 0 sand 523 0.48 m = 0.481
Saxena and Reddy (1989) Monterey No. 0 sand 428 0.57 2
R = 0.987
800
Bai (2011) Berlin sand 751 0.50
Bai (2011) Braunschweig fine sand 654 0.48
Bai (2011) Braunschweig coarse sand 523 0.60
Bai (2011) Cuxhaven fine sand 736 0.49 400
Bai (2011) Cuxhaven medium sand 658 0.47
Chattaraj and Sengupta Kasai River sand 612 0.46
(2016) 0
0 3 6 9 12

'c/Patm
Soil A value m R2
BP 588 0.48 0.987
BG 608 0.47 0.958
YF 609 0.46 0.982
YC 615 0.53 0.970
 Empirical Relationship – G/Gmax

 Modified Darendeli (Matasovic & Vucetic 1993) model has been

adopted as it provides better simulation

 Where γref is the reference shear strain (at G/Gmax=0.5) and α is the curvature
coefficient
(a) BP 1.0
(b) BG
1.0
BG data
BP data Modified Darendeli
0.8 Modified Darendeli 0.8

G 1
G 1  
 Gmax  
Gmax  

0.6 1     
 

G /G m ax
0.6  
1    
G /G m ax

     
      ref  
  ref  
0.4
0.4 Fitting param eters
Fitting param eters  = 1.014
 = 1.010  = 1.097
0.2 2
0.2  = 1.184 R =0.974
2
R =0.960

0.0
0.0 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
 /  ref
 /  ref
Dammala et al (2019)

Data of Indian Sands - Literature

Apparatus Seismic zone
Soil Location Author/s
adopted (IS 1893)

Kasai (KS) West Bengal RC+CTX III Chattaraj & Sengupta (2016)

Maheswari & Kirar (2017);

Saloni (SL) Uttarakhand BE+RC+CTX IV
Kirar & Maheswari (2018)

Hyderabad Andhra
RC III/II Dutta & Saride (2016)
(HS) Pradesh

40
Saloni (SL) sand Hyd (HS) sand
1.0 Saloni (SL) sand ( Kirar & Maheswari (2017) (Dutta & Saride 2016)
(Kirar & M aheswari 2017) 35 SL_12kPa_50% HS_50kPa_75%
SL_12kPa_50% SL_28kPa_50%
(a) SL_27kPa_50%
HS_100kPa_75%
30 SL_42kPa_50% HS_200kPa_75%
0.8
M odulus ratio, G /G m ax

SL_42kPa_50% SL_58kPa_50%
HS_400kPa_75%
D am ping ratio, %

SL_58kPa_50%
25 Kasai (KS) sand
Hyd (HS) sand Chattaraj & Sengupta (2016)
(Dutta & Saride 2016) KS_50kPa_60%
0.6
HS_50kPa_50% 20 KS_100kPa_60%
HS_100kPa_50% KS_200kPa_60%
HS_200kPa_50% KS_400kPa_60%
15
0.4 Kasai (KS) sand HS_400kPa_50% Seed & Idriss (1970)
(Chattaraj & Sengupta 2016) (b) boundaries
KS_50kPa_60% 10
Seed & Idriss (1970)
KS_100kPa_60% boundaries
0.2 KS_200kPa_60% 5
KS_400kPa_60%
0
0.0 1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10
1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 Shear strain, %
Shear strain, %
Dammala et al (2019)
Analytical Formulations – G/Gmax
 Several available formulations to model G/Gmax and damping ratio based on hyperbolic
stress-strain relationship by Duncan (1970)
 Darendeli (2001) model is adopted

 Where γref is the reference shear strain (at G/Gmax=0.5) and α is the curvature coefficient
 Modified Darendeli (Matasovic & Vucetic 1993) model has been adopted as it
provides better simulation B P 50%_50kPa
1.0 D arendeli (2001)
M odified D arendeli

0.8

0.6 G 1
G /G m ax

 
Gmax   
1  
 
 r ef 
0.4 G 1
 2
G max   
 R =0.946
1  
 
 r ef 
0.2 2
R =0.988

0.0
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

 /  ref
Dammala et al (2019)

Analytical Formulations – Damping ratio

 Damping ratio depends on the G/Gmax as it is a function of stress-strain response
(Matasovic & Vucetic, 1993)
 Darendeli’s Masing damping formulation was employed
0. 1
  G 
D  b     Dmas  Dmin
 Gmax 
Where Dmas is the masing damping evaluated by considering the stress-strain
response of the soil; Dmin is the minimum damping ratio (taken as 0.5% as
observed in the RC tests); scaling coefficient (b) needs to be evaluated for the
soils

Dammala et al (2019)
CTX Tests –Pore Water Pressure Model
 PWP model by Seed et al (1975) is adopted
CTX data and literature data was used (BP p . N . F .(   t ) S
 ru , N 
sand by Kumar (2017)) 1  N . F .(   t ) S
(a) 50 kPa
1.0 1.0 (b) 100 kPa
30% D r
60% D r 30% D r
0.8 90% D r 0.8 60% D r
Fit (Vucetic, 1986) 90% D r
Fit (Vucetic, 1986)
P W P ratio , R u

P W P ratio , R u
0.6 0.6

A B  x C

0.4 y 0.4 A = p =1.102

1  B  xC B = F =4.374
A = p =1.170 C = s =1.170
0.2 B = F =5.836 0.2
2
R = 0.980
C = s =1.130
2
R = 0.991
0.0 0.0
0.01 0.1 1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10
 - t  - t

(c) 150 kPa

1.0
30% D r
60% D r
0.8 90% D r
Fit (Vucetic, 1986)
P W P ratio , R u

0.6

A = p =1.030
0.4 B = F =5.540
C = s =1.330
2
R = 0.992
0.2

0.0
0.01 0.1 1 10 Dammala et al (2019)
 - t

Laboratory Model tests

Model Tests

 The purpose of model study is to accurately simulate Real

world problem (e.g. earthquake) using small scale model
 Preparing a physical model of existing prototype
 Simulating the field conditions, earthquake force
 Studying the response through visual observations and
understanding ground motion characteristics through
transducers

Different Models tests

 Shaking table tests
 Tilt table tests
 Centrifuge model tests
Shaking table tests

 1-g model tests

 In early stages of GEE all model tests by Shaking table-
for liquefaction, settlement analysis, foundation response
etc.,
 Main 3 attractions of 1-g model tests:
 Provides reliable data for supporting numerical modeling and
back analysis
 Size of model may be large-depending on available space and
loading devices
 Large space available for instrumentation, facilitates observation
 Uni-direction shake table: Simulated most dominating
feature of earthquake i.e., horizontal shaking

What is the model??

Shaking table at UCB

 6m X 6m
 8 vertical and8 horizontal
actuators
R-Wall model testing @ IITG

Scaling laws
Tilt table test (after Koseki et al. 1998)

Tilting angle, θ

Centrifuge modelling
 Testing of reduced scale models in the enhanced gravity field
 Gravity is enhanced by spinning the models in the large diameter geotechnical
centrifuge
 Scaling of stresses and strains in such models is very important
 Miniature instrumentations are essential
 To model earthquake events:
 models are subjected to horizontal shaking forces normal to the direction of
the centrifugal acceleration
 Different types of actuators are used
 Leaf spring actuator
 Servo-hydraulic shakers
 Stored angular momentum (SAM) actuator,
Scaling laws for Centrifuge modelling

Representation of Centrifuge Testing Scheme

Indian
Centrifuge

9 m radius UC Davis Centrifuge, USA.

Operational characteristics of SAM

earthquake actuator
Centrifuge modeling of loose fill embankment subjected to uni-
axial and bi-axial earthquakes
Liquefaction study of saturated loose sand with a piled
foundation
 Field Tests

Field tests

Low strain tests (< 0.001%) High strain tests (>0.001%)

source produces a pulse of
waves, whose times of arrival are
measured by receivers Seismic Cone Penetration Test
(SCPT)
Seismic Reflection Test Standard Penetration Test
Seismic Refraction Test (SPT)
Suspension Logging Test Dilatometer Test
Steady-State-Vibration Test Pressure meter Test
Cross-Hole Test Block vibration test
Down-/Up-hole Test Cyclic Plate Load Test
Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves
(SASW) Test
Multichannel Analysis of Surface
Waves (MASW) Test
Field Test measurements
 Generally depend on measurement of velocity of waves propagating
through the soil or
 Depend on the response of soil structure system to dynamic
excitations
 By geophysical methods
 Seismic cross-bore hole survey
 Seismic up-hole survey
 Seismic down-hole survey
 Seismic refraction survey
 Other tests
 Vertical block resonance test
 Horizontal block resonance test
 Cyclic plate load test
 Standard penetration test

Geophysical methods

 Measurement of physical field

 Gravity field; electric field; magnetic field, seismic field; radioactivity and
temperature… etc.
 Interpretation of the obtained in terms of properties of soil
subsurface layers
 Seismic method
 Propagation of elastic waves through earth
 Based on 3 principles
 Waves are propagated with different velocity in different geological strata
 Contrast between the velocities is large
 Strata velocities increase with depth
 Seismic Geo physical tests

 Low strain field tests

 Shear strains < 10-4%
 Involve creation of a transient and/or steady state stress
waves (Source)
 Interpretation of arrival time and spectral response at on
or more locations (Receiver)
 Methods to create impulse waves

(a) Vertical Impact (b) Shallow Explosive, (c) Horizontal Impact (d) Frequency-Controlled Surface Waves

Oscilloscope Crosshole Testing

ASTM D 4428
Stoke and Woods (1972)

Pump

t
Shear Wave Velocity:
Vs = x/t
Downhole
Hammer
(Source) Velocity
Test Transducer
Depth (Geophone
Receiver)
packer
x
Slope Slope
Note: Verticality of casing Inclinometer
Inclinometer
must be established by
slope inclinometers to correct
PVC-cased PVC-cased
distances x with depth.
Borehole Borehole
Field Tests
Seismic Cross Hole (CH) Test
 Invasive test to obtain (Vs or Vp)
 Stokoe et al (1972)

 Using two or more boreholes

 Methodology: Energy is generated at a
borehole and the receivers in the
nearby borehole act as receivers
 Distance between the boreholes is
measured and the arrival time of waves
 Straight forward and doesn’t need high
expertise
 Efficiency of results depend on
accuracy of measurement and precision
of instrumentation

Field Tests
CH Test – Example Study
 Location at IIT
Guwahati
 Two boreholes 4m apart
 Striking of the Ballard
shear wave generator at
specified depths
 Recording the signals in
another borehole at
same depths
 First arrival time of
wave recordings
Jumrik and Dey (2014)
 Oscilloscope Downhole Testing
Pump
Horizontal Plank
with normal load

x
t Hammer
z1
z2 packer

Horizontal
Test
Depth
Velocity
Interval Transducers
(Geophone
Receivers)

Shear Wave Velocity: R12 = z12 + x2

R22 = z22 + x2
Vs = R/t Cased
Borehole

Uphole Testing
 Cone Penetration Testing (CPT)

Real-Time readings in computer screen

Penetration at 2 cm/s

Sand

Clay

Buried Crust

Clay

Seismic Cone penetration Test

Seismic tests based on Reflection and Refraction of
Elastic Body waves
 Elastic stress waves (body waves)
 When impinges on the boundary of two layers the wave is
reflected and refracted.
 P-waves
 Direction of movement of particles coincides with direction of
propagation
 S-waves
 SV-waves- motion of particle is in the plane of propagation
 SH-waves- motion of particle is perpendicular to the plane of
propagation

Possible paths of body waves

Direct wave

Snell ' s law

sin i p v p1

sin R p v p 2
v p1
sin ic 
vp2
( for i p  ic , R p  90)

According to the laws of

reflection, and refraction
Seismic reflection

Time taken for direct wave to reach

the receiver = td
S R
x td = x/vp1
Time taken for reflected wave to
reach the receiver = tr

Wavefront H i  tan 1 x
2H
2
2i 2 H 2  x 
  
distance  2 
vp1 tr  
velocity v p1

4H 2  x2

vp2 v p1

(v p1t r ) 2  x 2
H
2

Seismic Refraction
S R
xn

H H
cos ic ic ic cos ic
v1
xn – 2H tan ic
v2
H x  2 H tan ic H
t hn   n 
v1 cos ic v2 v1 cos ic
v1
with sin ic 
v2
xn 1 1
t hn   2H 2  2
v2 v1 v2

For a receiver placed at xn= xc,, thn = xc/v1

xc v2  v1
H
2 v2  v1
Assignment
 Reflection survey in layered soils
 Refraction survey in layered soils

oscilloscope
Seismic Refraction
ASTM D 5777

Note: Vp1 < Vp2

Determine depth t1
to rock layer, zR t2
Vertical Geophones
t3
Source
(Plate) t4

x1
x2
x3
Soil: Vp1
zR x4

Rock: Vp2
Seismic Refraction

+RUL]RQWDO6RLO/D\HURYHU5RFN
0.020
xc Vp2  Vp1
zc 
Travel Time (seconds)

2 Vp2  Vp1
0.015
1
Vp2 = 4880 m/s
0.010

xc = 15.0 m
0.005
1 Depth to Rock:
Vp1 = 1350 m/s zc = 5.65 m
0.000
t values

0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance From Source (meters)
x values
Field tests to measure shear wave velocities

Spectral analysis of surface waves

(SASW)

 A vertical impact is applied at the ground surface generating

transient Rayleigh R-waves.
 Two or more receivers placed at the surface, at known distances
apart monitor the passage of these waves
Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) Test

 MASW is a seismic method which generates a shear-wave

velocity (Vs) profile (i.e., Vs versus depth) by analyzing
Rayleigh-type surface waves on a Multichannel record.
 The captured wave is analyzed using SurfSeis/any other
software package
 Geode seismograph with 24 or more geophones of 4.5
Hz
MASW system
Field Tests
Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW)
 Non invasive seismic survey (Park et al . 1999; Foti et al 2018)
 Generates 1D, 2D and 3D profiles of shear wave velocity (Vs)
 Principle: Vs profile is generated using the dispersive
characteristics of the surface waves
 Two types of analysis based on the source type
1. Active – user generated source through sledge hammer, etc.
2. Passive – waves generated from natural and anthropogenic activities
 Advantages of MASW test
 Speed of implementation
 Budget friendly
 Limitations
 High expertise required

www.masw.com

Field Tests
MASW Test – Equipment Required
1. Sledge hammer – as a source of generating the wave
2. Geophones to act as receivers
3. Data acquisition system
4. Software – data analysis
o SurfSeis
o EasyMASW
o Geopsy
Processing

Data Acquisition Data Formatting Processing & Editing

Field Setup

Inversion

Dispersion curve

Result 1D Vs profile and 2D profile

Field Tests
MASW Test - Methodology
 Consists three interpdependent stages
1. Data acquisition: Acquiring the response of soil deposit using an energy
source (typically a sledge hammer is used) and recording through
receivers
2. Dispersion analysis: Frequency variation with the phase velocity at each
location is determined
3. Inversion analysis: Back calculation to obtain the final Vs profile

Foti et al (2018)
 SurfSeis with Recorded data

Soil Profiling Using 2D Vs MASW

Subsurface Velocity in 2D format

Field Tests
MASW Test – Example Study
 Active MASE test at IIT Guwahati

Step 1 – Raw wave field

Step 3 – Inversion analysis

Step 2 – Dispersion analysis Kashyap et al (2016)

Cone Penetration Testing (CPT)

Real-Time readings in computer screen

Penetration at 2 cm/s

Sand

Clay

Buried Crust

Clay
Other In-situ tests

EXPERIMENTAL
DETERMINATION OF DYNAMIC
SOIL PROPERTIES- IS: 5249
 Block Vibration Test (Resonance Test)
 Steady State vibration test
 Cyclic plate load test

Experimental Determination Of Dynamic Soil Properties:

Block Vibration Test

Set up For Block Vibration Test

(IS 5249:1992)
Test pit
 Suitable size depending upon size of block
 Size of the pit may be 3 m x 6 m at bottom
 Depth preferably equal to proposed depth of foundations
 Test should be conducted above the ground water table.
 In case of rock
 test may be performed on the surface of rock bed itself
 The bottom of the pit should be level and horizontal and the sides of
the pit should be at stable slope and may be kept vertical where
possible

Test Block

 PCC block of M-15 concrete

 Should be cured for at least 15 days before testing
 The size of the block should be selected depending
upon the sub-soil conditions.
 In ordinary soils -1 m x 1 m x 1.5 m and
 In dense soils - 0.75 m x 0.75 m x 1 m.
 In boulder deposits the height may be increased suitably.
 The block size should be so adjusted that the mass
ratio, Bz >1
1  m 
BZ   * 3 
 4 r 0 
 Foundation bolts should be embedded into block
Test Set-up

 Vibration exciter should be fixed on the concrete block and

suitable connection between power supplies, speed control
unit, should be made

Block Diagram of Testing Equipment for Block Vibration Test (IS 5249:1992)

Apparatus used for the Test

 Mechanical Oscillator
 producing a sinusoidal varying force
 up to 5000 kg peak-to-peak.
 Different peak to peak loads at different eccentricity and frequency

Mechanical Oscillator
D.C. Motor

Motor of 10 HP power rating to run the oscillator in the

required frequency range at full load is used in the
experiments.

Motor and flexible shaft arrangement

Speed Control Unit

 The motor can be operated up to 3000 rpm speed
using a speed control unit

Speed Control Unit

Values of forces with speed at different eccentricity
(AGM 4501)
Eccentricity 16.4 32.8 49.2 65.6 82 98.4 114.8 131.2 147.6 164 180.4
Speed Force Force Force Force Force Force Force Force Force Force Force
rpm kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
300 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.23 0.28 0.32 0.35 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.42
600 0.24 0.47 0.70 0.91 1.10 1.27 1.42 1.53 1.62 1.67 1.68
900 0.54 1.07 1.58 2.05 2.48 2.87 3.19 3.45 3.64 3.75 3.79
1200 0.96 1.90 2.80 3.64 4.41 5.09 5.67 6.13 6.46 6.67 6.73
1500 1.50 2.97 4.38 5.69 6.90 7.96 8.86 9.58 10.10 10.41 10.52
1800 2.16 4.27 6.30 8.20 9.93 11.46 12.76 13.79 14.54 15.00 15.15
2100 2.94 5.82 8.58 11.16 13.52 15.60 17.36 18.77 19.79 20.41 20.61
2400 3.84 7.60 11.20 14.58 17.66 20.37 22.68 24.51 25.85 26.66 26.93
2700 4.86 9.62 14.18 18.45 22.35 25.79 28.70 31.03 33.72 33.74 34.08
3000 6.00 11.87 17.50 22.78 27.59 31.84 35.43 38.30 40.39 41.66 42.07
3300 7.26 14.37 21.18 27.56 33.38 38.52 42.87 46.35 48.88 50.41 50.91
3600 8.64 17.10 25.21 32.80 39.73 45.84 51.02 55.16 58.17 59.99 60.58

Acceleration Pick-up

 The accelerator works based on MEMS (Micro

Electromechanical Systems) Technology having natural
frequency, about 220 Hz undamped and 140 Hz damped.

Acceleration Pick-up
Velocity Pick-ups
 Two in number, of suitable type, sensitive enough to record
even feeble ground vibrations.
 Natural frequency<10 Hz and damping less than 1 percent
of the critical damping.

Velocity Pick-up

Test Setup for Block Vibration Test

Vertical Vibration Test
 Vibration pick-ups are fixed at the top of the block to sense
vertical motion of the block

 Vibration exciter should be mounted on the block such that it

generates purely vertical sinusoidal vibrations
 The line of action of vibrating force should pass through CG of block

 The exciter is operated at a constant frequency

 The frequency of the exciter is increased in steps of small values, (l-4
cycles/set) up to maximum frequency of the exciter and the signals
measured.

 The dynamic force should never exceed 20 percent of the total

mass of the block and exciter assembly.

Amplitude versus frequency curve shall be plotted for each

excitation level to obtain the natural frequency of the soil and the
foundation block tested.

a
Az  4 f 2
2
z

Typical Amplitude versus Frequency Curve (IS 5249:1992)

Determination of Coefficient of Elastic Uniform
Compression of Soil
4 2 f nz2 M
Where, Cu  A
fnz = Natural frequency
M = Mass of the block, exciter and motor
A = Contact area of the block with the soil.

A
C u1
 C u
A1

Damping Coefficient of Soil

f 2  f1
 
2 f nz

The coefficient of elastic uniform compression (Cu) is related

to the elastic Young’s modulus (E) by the following equation
Where,
μ = Poisson’s ratio
E Cs B= Width of base of block
Cu  *

1  2
BL  L = Length of base of block
Cs= Coefficient depending on L/B ratio

Value of Cs (after Barkan, 1962)

Value of Poisson’s ratio (IS 5249:1992)
L/B Cs
Types of Soil Poisson’s ratio
1.0 1.06
1.5 1.07
Clay 0.5
2.0 1.09
3.0 1.13 Sand 0.30 to 0.35

5.0 1.22
Rock 0.15 to 0.25
10.0 1.41
Relation between E and G

E
G
21   

Where,
G = Shear modulus
E = Young’s modulus
μ = Poisson’s ratio

Typical Results Dynamic soil properties at

eccentricity 16.4 degree
Dynamic soil Calculated value
properties

fn (Hz) 19.9

Amplitude (mm) 0.057

Cu (kN/m3) 40285.38

E (kN/m2) 25012.09

G (kN/m2) 9263.738

ξ 0.0754

Variation of Amplitudes with

Frequencies at eccentricity 16.4
 Variation of Amplitudes with Frequencies at different eccentricity

Fundamental frequencies are different at different eccentricity levels,

because different force levels cause different strain levels

Horizontal Vibration Test

 Oscillator direction and Transducers position need to be
changes
 Measuring the phase difference between vibration at two pointer under steady
vibrations.
 When the test is conducted using a phase meter, the phase angle corresponding
to different distances between the geophones should be recorded

110
Frequency, RPM
 a curve plotted 886

between the phase

1630
100

angle and the

distance. Phase angle, degrees 90

 From the curve, the 80

distance S between
the geophones for a 70
phase difference of
90 should be 60

determined. S
50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance between velocity pickups, cm

 In case of uniform soil extending up to infinite depth, the wavelength of

propagating vibrations is given by
  S
4   2   
1 2
 if the geophones have the same characteristics, that is 1 = 2
 S
4
 Velocity of shear waves Vs is given by

V s  f
 Other correlations

CYCLIC PLATE LOAD TEST

Equipment
 Suitable arrangement for providing reaction of adequate
magnitude depending upon size of plate employed should
be used.
 The load mechanism should have facility to apply and
remove the loads quickly
 A hydraulic jack or any other suitable equipment may be
used
 The plate shall be located at a depth equal to the depth of
the proposed foundation in a pit excavated as given in IS
1888

 Plate of MS not less than 25 mm thick

 Size 300mm to 750 mm
 Test pi7 at least 5 times size of the plate
 Seating pressure
 Equal cumulative increments of not more than 100 kPa or 1/5th
of estimated allowable bearing pressure
 Each loading maintained till settlement is complete
 Then load released to ‘0’ and plate is allowed to rebound, final
settlement recorded
 The cycles of loading & unloading till the final load reached
1 DWXUH RI ORDGVHWWOHP HQW GLDJUDP  IRU D F\FOLF SODWH ORDG WHVW

Applicability of Field Tests

 Advantages
 Provide reliable results
 Insitu characteristics such as void ratio, confining pressure, plasticity, etc
are fully considered
 Relatively faster
 Budget friendly
 Limitations
 Can only provide dynamic stiffness in elastic range
 Samples for further analysis is not possible
 Invasive tests are relatively better compared to non-invasive due to less
uncertainties in testing and data analysis
 Borehole surveys lead to disturbance in fabric of soil, ineffective
determination of in case of lateral heterogeneity
 Besides these, use of at least one field test is
recommended (Garofalo et al 2016)