Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 53 (2013) 210–216

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

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

Shear modulus degradation model for cohesive soils

P. Subramaniam a, Subhadeep Banerjee b,n
a
Geotechnical Engineering Division, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: One of the key issues in cyclic behaviour of soft clays is gradual degradation of shear modulus. In most of
Received 15 February 2013 the cyclic soil models such degrdation of shear modulus of soil with the progression of loading cycle was
Received in revised form incorporated, addition to the standard non-linear backbone curves. Such cyclic degradation was usually
5 July 2013
represented by a parameter, degradation index, which is a function of loading cycles and cyclic shear
Accepted 7 July 2013
strain amplitude. However it is well understood from the past experimental studies that the degradation
Available online 9 August 2013
index depends on various other factors as well. The present paper aims to develop a simple empirical
Keywords: model involving degradation index as a function of number of loading cycles, plasticity index, cyclic shear
Stiffness degradation strain, overconsolidation ratio, loading frequency based on the experimental results. It is then fitted with
Modulus reduction
the hyperbolic hysteretic model to estimate the modulus degradation for different cycles. Finally the
Masing rule
damping ratio is calculated based on Masing rule with correction factors and validated through
Damping correction
experimental results.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Degradation of soft clays during cyclic loading has been well
reported in past studies involving element tests [1,2]. This is
particularly significant with respect to the stability of onshore or
offshore structures subjected to repeated loadings such as, earth-
quakes or ocean waves. As a result, in most of the cyclic soil
models, substantial decrease of shear modulus of soil with the
progression of loading cycle was incorporated, addition to the
standard non-linear backbone curves [1,3]. Idriss et al. [1] pro-
posed a simple degradation model for soft marine clay under
cyclic and transient loading based on their experimental results.
Cyclic degradation, as described by Idriss et al. [1], depends on a
parameter termed as degradation index which is expressed as
a function of cyclic strain amplitudes and number of cycles.
Matasovic and Vucetic [4] further extended Idriss's concept of
degradation index to incorporate effect of excess pore pressure. In
addition to the cyclic strain amplitudes and number of cycles, it
was also noted that the overconsolidation ratio and plasticity
index also affect degradation [3,5].
Researchers in past proposed various formulations of degrada-
tion index. However most of such models considered degradation
index as a function of two parameters such as, number of cycles and
cyclic strain amplitude (e.g., Idriss et al. [1]; Pyke and Beikae [6]).
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 44 2257 4304, +91 44 2257 6304;
fax: +91 44 2257 4252.
E-mail addresses: psmani100@gmail.com (P. Subramaniam),
subhadeep@iitm.ac.in (S. Banerjee).
Zhou and Gong [7] represented the degradation index based on
number of loading cycles, loading frequency, overconsolidation
ratio and cyclic stress ratio (CSR). However the model did not
account for plasticity index and cyclic shear strain. Furthermore
Maugeri et al. [8] discussed that the testing methods (such as
cyclic loading torsional shear test, double specimen direct simple
shear test, cyclic loading triaxial test etc) also influence the shear
modulus reduction curve. The present paper aims to develop a
simple empirical model involving degradation index as a function
number of loading cycles, plasticity index, cyclic shear strain,
overconsolidation ratio and loading frequency based on the
experimental results reported in the past studies. Secondly, the
proposed degradation index formulation in concurrence with the
hyperbolic backbone curve is extended to study the influence of
various parameters on modulus reduction curves and validated
through the experimental results available in the literature. Finally
the damping ratios for various types of soils with varying plasticity
index will be compared with published experimental results.
2. Formulation of proposed model
The proposed model encompasses hyperbolic backbone curve
with hysteretic stress–strain behaviour. The hysteretic stress–
strain behaviour for unloading and reloading is modelled using
the Masing rule [9]. The progressive degradation of the backbone
curve under repeated loading is modelled using a modified form of
Idriss's concept [1] of degradation index.

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.07.003
 P. Subramaniam, S. Banerjee / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 53 (2013) 210–216 211

2.1. Hyperbolic–hysteretic stress–strain behaviour

6000
The basic backbone curve for non-linear cyclic response of
'A' obtained from Eq.4
marine clay can be represented using hyperbolic relationship 5000
'A' obtained from Viggiani & Atkinson (1995)
proposed by Nasim [10],
Gmax 4000
q ¼ qf  2
ð1Þ
R þ R εs
3000

A
where, q is the deviator stress, qf is the deviator stress at failure, εs
is the generalised shear strain and assuming R as the modulus
ratio, 2000
Gmax
R¼ ð2Þ 1000
qf

where, Gmax is the small strain shear modulus.

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
2.1.1. Formulation of Gmax PI
Gmax can be represented as a function of mean effective
confining stress and overconsolidation ratio (OCR) as proposed
1.0
by Viggiani and Atkinson [11]
Gmax ¼ AðP′Þn ðOCRÞm ð3Þ 0.9

where, 0.8
Mean effective confining stress (P′),
0.7
1 þ 2k0
P′ ¼ sv ′ 0.6 'm' obtained from Eq.5
m, n
3
'm' obtained from Viggiani & Atkinson (1995)
where, k0 is the coefficient of earth pressure at rest condition and 0.5 Predicted 'n' 'm' obtained from Eq.5
sv′ is the effective vertical stress. Parameters A, m and n depend on
plasticity index (PI) of soils [11] and can be expressed from the 0.4 'n' obtained from Viggiani & Atkinson (1995)
regression analysis of the experimental results as,
0.3
A ¼ 5246exp ð0:041PIÞ ð4Þ
0.2
n ¼ 0:1259lnðPIÞ þ 0:3746 ð5Þ
0 20 40 60 80 100
m ¼ 0:0019PI þ 0:1788 ð6Þ PI

Fig. 1a and b shows the variations of the parameters A, m and n
with plasticity index (PI) plotted along with the experimental
results reported by Viggiani and Atkinson [11].
Fig. 1. (a). Comparison of computed and experimental stiffness parameter ‘A’ Vs.
plasticity index (PI). (b). Comparison of computed and experimental stiffness
parameter ‘n’ and ‘m’ Vs. plasticity index (PI).

2.1.2. Formulation of qf Angle of friction, in turn, can be related to plasticity index (PI)
The deviator stress at failure, qf, is given by, as [14],

Mp′ sin ϕ ¼ 0:8140:234log PI ð13Þ

qf ¼ ð7Þ
2Δ
From Eqs. (12) and (13) M can be represented as a function of
where, M is the slope of the critical state line in q′–p plane, p′ is the plasticity index (PI),
mean effective confining stress and assuming,
4:8841:404log PI
λκ M¼ ð14Þ
Δ¼ ð8Þ 2:1860:234log PI
λ
By substituting Eqs. (8)–(14) in Eq. (7), deviator stress at failure, qf,
λ and κ are the slopes of the normal compression line and
can be expressed in terms of plasticity index (PI) as,
recompression line, respectively and can be expressed in terms


of plasticity index [12], 4:8841:404log PI
2:1860:234log PI
P′
λ ¼ 0:02 þ 0:45PI ð9Þ qf ¼ ðð0:023864þ0:00366PIÞ=ð0:02þ0:0045PIÞÞ ð15Þ
2
κ ¼ 0:0008ðPI4:6Þ ð10Þ
where PI is the plasticity index.
2.1.3. Secant shear modulus
From the Eqs. (8), (9) and (10) Δ can be represented as,
The secant shear modulus at the load reversal point can be
0:023864 þ 0:00366PI represented as,
Δ¼ ð11Þ
0:02 þ 0:0045PI qr
Gsec ¼ ð16Þ
M can be expressed in terms angle of friction (φ) as [13], εr
6 sin ϕ where, qr is the deviator stress at load reversal point and εr is the
M¼ ð12Þ
3 sin ϕ reference strain
212 P. Subramaniam, S. Banerjee / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 53 (2013) 210–216

1.0 The damage parameter t, is defined as,

log δ
t¼ ð21Þ
log N
0.8
which may be rearranged to yield

δ ¼ N t ð22Þ
Gsec1/Gmax

0.6
furthermore as discussed earlier, degradation index depends on
Computed from Eq. 19 (PI=30%)
the number of loading cycles, strain amplitudes, plasticity index,
0.4 From Vucetic & Dobry 1991 (PI=30%) overconsolidation ratio and loading frequency [3]. Based on the
Computed from Eq. 19 (PI=50%) experimental data available in the literature [3,5,15,17–20] the
From Vucetic & Dobry 1991 (PI=50%) damage parameter (t) can be expressed as,
0.2 Computed from Eq. 19 (PI=100%)
ε
From Vucetic & Dobry 1991 (PI=100%) t ¼ 0:04 OCR0:6 ð0:02537 þ 0:022f Þε ð23Þ
ðPI=100Þ
From Cavallaro et al 2012 (Catania clay)
0.0
1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1
Shear strain(%) 3. Validation of the proposed model

Fig. 2. Comparison of computed and experimental modulus reduction curves

varying with shear strain for the first loading cycle (PI¼ 30, 50, and 100).
Fig. 3(a, b, c) shows the variation of degradation index with
number of loading cycles for different overconsolidation ratio
(OCR ¼2, 4) and strain amplitudes (γ¼0.64%, 0.48%, and 0.94%).
qr can be represented using hyperbolic relationship Eq. (1), For the particular soil type and strain amplitude, Fig. 3(a)–(c) shows
that the degradation index linearly decrease with loading cycles in a
Gmax semi-log plot and match reasonably well with the experimental
qr ¼ qf  ð17Þ
R þ R 2 εr data [3]. Moreover Fig. 4 shows that the rate of degradation
The shear modulus reduction curve for the first loading cycle is decrease with the overconsolidation ratio.
derived from Eqs. (16) and (17) and represented using hyperbolic Fig. 5 plots the degradation index computed from Eq. (22)
hysteretic model as per Eq. (18) against plasticity index alongside with the experimental data
obtained from the literature [3,5,18]. Figure shows that the model
Gsec 1 results compare favourably with the experimental results. Figure
¼ ð18Þ
Gmax 1 þ Rεr also indicates that the rate of degradation decrease with the

Gsec 1
¼ 4:8841:404log PI ð19Þ
Gmax P′
1þ ðð5246eð0:041PIÞ P′ð0:1259lnPIþ0:3746Þ OCRð0:0019PIþ0:1788Þ Þ=ð 2:1860:234log PI
ÞÞðεr Þ
2ð Þ
0:023864þ0:00366PI
0:02þ0:0045PI

The modulus reduction curves (Gsec/Gmax) for the first loading
cycle are plotted (as per Eq. (18)) and compared with the
published experimental results [15,16] in Fig. 2. For comparison,
the data corresponding to PIs of 30%, 50% and 100% were chosen
from Vucetic and Dobry [15]. Experimental results [16] of Catania
clay were also plotted along with the proposed model. From the
present analysis, the shear modulus reduction curve of Catania
clay reasonably matches with Vucetic and Dobry (1991)'s experi-
mental results and hyperbolic hysteresis model for PI¼ 30. It is
evident from the figure that for all three PIs, the modulus
reduction curves are reasonably matching with the trends shown
by Vucetic and Dobry [15].
increase in plasticity index. Furthermore parametric studies are
conducted to examine the relative effect of overconsolidation
ratio, plasticity index and strain amplitude on the degradation
index. Fig. 6 shows that for the identical plasticity index normally
consolidated clays (OCR ¼ 1) degrade more than the over-
consolidated clays. Figure also shows that for similar OCR, the
clays with low plasticity index degrade more than that for high
plastic clays. Similarly, Fig. 7 shows that, with strain amplitude, the
normally consolidated clays degrade more than the overconsoli-
dated clays.
3.1. Modulus reduction curve after the first cycle

2.2. Modelling cyclic degradation

By substituting Eqs. (20)–(22) on Eq. (18), the modulus reduc-
tion curve can be generalised for different cycles and can be
For strain-controlled triaxial tests, Idriss et al. [1] characterised
expressed as a function of degradation index as following,
the degradation of the backbone curve using the degradation
index δ and the damage parameter t. For uniform strain cycles, Gsec N N t
Idriss et al.'s [1] degradation index δ is defined by ¼ ð24Þ
Gmax 1 þ Rεr
Gsec N τcN
δ¼ ¼ ð20Þ
Gsec 1 τc1 ε 0:6
Gsec N N 0:04ðPI=100ÞOCR ð0:02537þ0:022f Þε
where, ¼ ð25Þ
Gmax 1 þ Rεr
Gsec N and Gsec 1 are the secant shear moduli associated with the
stress at the point of reversal in the Nth and 1st cycles, Fig. 8 plot Gsec N/Gmax for the first and 100th cycles against strain
respectively, and amplitudes for normally consolidated clays with two different
τcN and τc1 are the cyclic shear stress amplitude of the Nth and plasticity indices of 15% and 50%. Fig. 8a and b shows that Gsec N/
1st cycles, respectively. Gmax is reduced from the 1st to 100th cycle by an average amount
 P. Subramaniam, S. Banerjee / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 53 (2013) 210–216 213

1.0
1.00
0.98 Strain=0.64%,OCR=4,PI=45%,f=0.2Hz
OCR -3
0.96

Degradation Index
Degradation Index

0.94
OCR -2
0.92
0.90 0.8 OCR -1

0.88
From Vucetic & Dobry (1988)
0.86 Computed from Eq.22
0.84
Strain=1%,PI=50%,f=1Hz
0.82
0.80 0.6
1 10 100 1 10 100
N N
Fig. 4. Variation of degradation index with Number of loading cycles for OCR¼ 1,
2, and 3.
1.0

0.9 1.0
Strain=0.48%,OCR=2,PI=45%,f=0.2Hz
Degradation Index

0.8 0.8
Degradation Index

0.7 0.6
Test results from Vucetic & Dobry (1988),
From Vucetic & Dobry 1988
Vucetic (1992), Tan & Vucetic (1989)
0.6 Computed from Eq.22 0.4 Computed from Eq.22

0.5 0.2
1 10 100
N
0.0
1.0 0 20 40 60 80 100
Plasticity Index
Fig. 5. Comparison of computed and experimental variation in degradation index
0.9 with plasticity index.
Degradation Index

Strain=0.94%,OCR=4,PI=45%,f=0.2Hz
0.8

1.0
0.7 From Vucetic & Dobry (1988)
Computed from Eq.22 OCR = 3
0.8
0.6
OCR = 1
Degradation Index

OCR = 2
0.6
0.5
1 10 100
N 0.4
Fig. 3. (a)–(c). Comparison of computed and experimental variation in degradation
index with number of loading cycles.
Strain=1%,N=10,f=1Hz
0.2

of 14% and 8% for plasticity index of 15% and 50% respectively. 0.0
Overall, figures also indicate that for different PI's the modulus 0 20 40 60 80 100
reduction curves for the first and 100th cycles computed from
Plasticity Index
Eq. (25) match reasonably well with the experimental data
previously published in literature [15]. Fig. 6. Variation of degradation index with plasticity index for OCR ¼ 1, 2, and 3.
214 P. Subramaniam, S. Banerjee / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 53 (2013) 210–216

1.00 3.2. Damping ratio

OC The loss of energy due to cyclic loading is often represented by

0.98 R=
3 the damping ratio (D) and expressed as, the ratio of the energy loss
Degradation Index

0.96 per cycle to the maximum strain energy stored in the material

OC
body (as shown in Eq. (26)).

OC
R=

R=
ΔW

1
0.94
D¼ ð26Þ

2
4πW
0.92 PI=50%, N=10, f=1Hz where, ΔW is the area of the stress–strain loop under cyclic
loading and can be expressed as [21],
0.90 Z εr 
ΔW ¼ 8 f ðεÞ dεW ð27Þ
0
0.88
and total energy (W) is given as,
0.86 1
W¼ εr f ðεr Þ ð28Þ
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 2
Shear strain(%) where, f ðεÞ describes the stress–strain relationship given by
Fig. 7. Variation of degradation index with cyclic shear strain for OCR ¼1, 2, and 3. Eq. (1).
Substituting f ðεÞ from Eq. (1) into Eqs. (27) and (28), damping
ratio can be expressed as,
" 2Gmax
#
2 2qf εr  R2 ln ð1 þ Rεr Þ
D¼ 1 ð29Þ
π εr ðqf ðGmax =R þ R2 εr ÞÞ

1.0 however, it is well known that the damping ratio computed from
hyperbolic–Masing model over-predicts the damping ratio (Fig. 9).
Such general over-prediction of damping ratio is also noted by
0.8 Ishihara [21]. Various correction parameters based on plasticity
index and relative consistency were proposed in the past studies
to achieve realistic damping ratios [22–25]. Many of the past
GsecN/Gmax

0.6 studies [20,26–28] showed that apart from a slight reduction in

the damping ratio in the early stage of cycling, damping generally
remains constant with increasing cycles. Hence in the present
0.4 model the effect of number of cycles on damping ratios is not
considered.
Computed from Eq.25 (PI=15%, N=1) In the present study the corrected damping ratio (Dcorrected)
0.2 From Vucetic & Dobry 1991 (PI=15%, N=1) is modelled as,
Computed from Eq.25 (PI=15%, N=100) Dcorrected ¼ Dmin þ C  D ð30Þ
From Vucetic & Dobry 1991 (PI=15%, N=100)
0.0 where, Dmin is the minimum damping ratio at small strain and C is
1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 the damping correction factor.
Shear strain(%) The minimum damping ratio at small strain can be expressed
as [24],
Dmin ¼ 0:008PI þ 0:82 ð31Þ
1.0
65
0.8 60 Vucitic and Dobry (1991) [15]
55 Hardin et al (1972) [34]
Kagwa (1993) [35]
50
GsecN/Gmax

0.6 Ishibashi and Zhang (1993) [29]

45 Kokusho et al (1982) [31]
Damping ratio(%)

40 Hyperbolic hysteretic model

0.4 35
Computed from Eq.25 (PI=50%, N=1) 30
From Vucetic & Dobry 1991 (PI=50%, N=1) 25
0.2 Computed from Eq.25 (PI=50%, N=100) 20
From Vucetic & Dobry 1991 (PI=50%, N=100)
15
0.0 10
1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1
5
Shear strain(%)
0
Fig. 8. (a). Comparison of computed and experimental modulus reduction curves 1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10
varying with shear strain (PI ¼15, N ¼1, 100). (b). Comparison of computed and Shear strain(%)
experimental modulus reduction curves varying with shear strain (PI ¼50,
N ¼1, 100). Fig. 9. Experimental and Masing damping ratio of Kaoline clay [15,34,35,29,31].
 P. Subramaniam, S. Banerjee / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 53 (2013) 210–216
30
Computed with damping correction from Eq.28 (PI=15%)
Computed with damping correction from Eq.28 (PI=50%)
25 Computed with damping correction from Eq.28 (PI=100%)
From Vucetic & Dobry 1991 (PI=15%)
From Vucetic & Dobry 1991 (PI=50%)
From Vucetic & Dobry 1991 (PI=100%)
Damping ratio(%)
20
From Cavallaro et al 2012 (Catania clay)
15
10
5 [5] Vucetic M. Soil properties and seismic response. Proceedings of the 10th world
0
1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1
Shear strain(%)
Fig. 10. Comparison of computed and experimental damping ratio.
The correction factor, C, depends on modulus reduction and plasticity
index and can be given as,

Gsec 1 log B
C¼A ð32Þ
Gmax
where Gsec 1 is the secant shear modulus at the 1st cycle and
parameters A and B are the functions of plasticity index and
expressed as,
A ¼ 0:075  PI 0:057
log B ¼ ð6E0:5ÞPI 2 0:0089PI0:6664
The parameters A and B are obtained by performing the
regression analysis between C and Gsec 1/Gmax. The damping ratio,
is therefore, indirectly modelled as a function of modulus reduc-
tion [23,29,30]. Fig. 10 shows the comparison of corrected damp-
ing ratio with experimental results [15,16] for PIs of 15%, 50% and
100%. The damping ratio curve of Catania clay matches reasonably
with Vucetic and Dobry (1991)'s experimental result and modified
damping model for PI¼ 30. Figure shows that the corrected
damping ratios fall well within the range of experimental results.
However the model does not consider the effects of confining
pressures on damping ratio. Several past studies suggest that the
effect of confining pressure on the damping ratio is negligibly
small for cohesive soil [31–33].
4. Discussions and conclusions
A shear modulus degradation model is presented emphasising
the effect of various parameters on the degradation index
and shear modulus reduction curves. The model considers a
wide range of plasticity (0 o PI≤100), cyclic strain amplitude
(0 oγ 41%), over-consolidation ratio (1≤OCR≤4), loading fre-
quency (0.01≤f≤1 Hz) and number of loading cycles (0 oN≤100).
The modulus reduction curves, further developed from the model,
are compared favourably with the experimental results. Finally a
simple correction is proposed for the damping ratios computed
from the model. The correction factor, as proposed, depends on
the plasticity index and modulus degradation. The corrected
damping ratios are found to be matched reasonably well with
the various experimental values over the wide range of plasticity
215
index. However the proposed model is based on total stress
approach and hence it is only applicable to undrained loading.
References
[1] Idriss IM, Dobry R, Singh RD. Nonlinear behaviour of soft clays during cyclic
loading. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division ASCE 1978;102
(12):1427–47.
[2] Rao SN, Panda AP. Non-linear analysis of undrained cyclic strength of soft
marine clay. Ocean Engineering 1998;26:241–53.
[3] Vucetic M, Dobry R. Degradation of marine clays under cyclic loading. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering Division ASCE 1988;114(2):133–49.
[4] Matasovic N, Vucetic M. Generalized cyclic-degradation-pore- pressure gen-
eration model for clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1995;121
(1):33–42.
conference on earthquake engineering 1992; 1199–1204.
[6] Pyke R, Beikae M. TESS—A computer program for nonlinear ground response
analysis.User manual. Taga Engineering Software Services, Berkeley (Califor-
nia); 1993.
1 [7] Zhou J, Gong X. Strain degradation of saturated clay under cyclic loading.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 2001;38:208–12.
[8] Maugeri M, Simonelli AL, Ferraro A, Grasso S. Recorded ground motion and
site effects evaluation for the April 6, 2009 L'Aquila earthquake. Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering 2011;9:157–79.
[9] Masing G. Eigenspannungen und Verfestigung beim Messing. Proceedings of
the 2nd International Congress on Applied Mechanics, Zurich 1926; 332–335.
[10] Nasim ASM. Numerical modeling of soil profile and behaviour in deep
excavation analyses. Department of Civil Engineering National University of
Singapore; 1999.
[11] Viggiani G, Atkinson JH. Stiffness of fine-grained soils at very small strains.
Geotechnique 1995;45(2):249–65.
[12] Nakase A, Kamei T, Kusakabe O. Constitute parameters estimated by plasticity
index. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division ASCE 1988;114:844–58.
[13] Schofield A, Wroth P. Critical state soil mechanics. Berkshire, England:
McGRAW-HILL Publishing Company Limited; 1968.
[14] Kenny TC. Discussion on proceedings paper 1732. Proceedings ASCE 1959;85
(SM3):67–79.
ð33Þ [15] Vucetic M, Dobry R. Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 1991;117(1):89–107.
[16] Cavallaro A, Ferraro A, Grasso S, Maugeri M. Topographic effects on the Monte
ð34Þ Po Hillin Catania (Italy). Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
2012;43:97–113.
[17] Cavallaro A, Presti Lo DCF, Maugeri M. The degradation behavior of Fabriano
soil during cyclic loading. Rivista Italiana di Geotechnica 2001;2:107–16.
[18] Tan K, Vucetic M. Behaviour of medium and low plasticity clays under cyclic
simple shear conditions. Proceedings of 4th international conference on soil
dynamics and earthquake engineering, Mexico; 1989.
[19] Presti Lo DCF, Cavallaro A, Maugeri M, Pallara O, Ionescu F. Modelling of
hardening and degradation behavior of clays and sands during cyclic loading.
Proceedings of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering
2000;1849:1–8.
[20] Dobry R, Vucetic M. Dynamic properties and seismic response of soft clay
deposits. Proceedings of the international symposium on geotechnical engi-
neering of soft soils, Mexico; 1987:51–87.
[21] Ishihara K. Soil behavior in earthquake geotechnics. Oxford: Clarendon Press;
1996.
[22] Romo MP, Ovando-Shelley E. Modelling the dynamic behaviour of Mexican
clays. Proceedings of the 11th world conference on earthquake engineering.
Mexico; 1996:1024.
[23] Darendeli MB. Development of a new family of normalised modulus reduction
and material damping curves. Austin: Department of Civil Engineering
University of Texas; 2001.
[24] Zhang J, Andrus RD, Juang CH. Normalized shear modulus and material
damping ratio relationships. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division
ASCE 2005;131(4):453–64.
[25] Subramaniam P., Subhadeep Banerjee. A correction to damping ratio for
hyperbolic-hysteretic model for clayey soil. International Journal of Geotech-
nical Engineering 2013;7(2):124-29.
[26] Kim D, Stokoe KH, Hutson WR. Deformational characteristics of soils at small
to intermediate strains from cyclic tests. FHWA/TX, Report no, 92+1177–3;
1992.
[27] Shafiee A, Ghate R. Shear modulus and damping ratio in all aggregate-clay
mixtures: an experimental study versus ANNs prediction. Journal of Applied
Sciences 2008;8(18):3068–82.
[28] Banerjee S. Centrifuge and numerical modelling of soft clay-pile-raft founda-
tions subjected to seismic shaking. Department of Civil Engineering National
University of Singapore; 2009.
[29] Ishibashi I, Zhang X. Unified shear moduli and damping ratios of sand and
clay. Soils and Foundations 1993;33(1):182–91.
[30] Grasso S, Maugeri M. The seismic microzonation of the city of Catania (Italy)
for the Etna Scenario Earthquake (M¼ 6.2) of 20 February 1818. Earthquake
Spectra 2012;28(2):573–94.
216 P. Subramaniam, S. Banerjee / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 53 (2013) 210–216

[31] Kokusho T, Yoshida Y, Esashi Y. Dynamic properties soft clay for wide strain
range. Soils and Foundations 1982;22(4):1–18.
[32] Kim TC, Novak M. Dynamic properties of some cohesive soils of Ontario.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 1981;18(3):371–89.
[33] Towhata I. Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Berlin: Springer; 2008.
[34] Hardin BO, Drnevich VP. Shear modulus and damping in soils: design
equations and curves. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Division ASCE 1972;98:667–92.
[35] Kagawa T. Moduli and damping factors of soft marine clays. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 1992;118(9):1360–75.