Advertisement

Dynamic Characterization of Soils Using Various Methods for Seismic Site Response Studies

  • Pradeep Kumar Dammala
  • A. Murali KrishnaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Developments in Geotechnical Engineering book series (DGE)

Abstract

Seismic analysis of structures will not be complete without a proper investigation of underlying soil behavior to dynamic loading. Such dynamic behavior is complex in nature due to many influencing parameters. The complex dynamic soil behavior can be represented using the strength and stiffness properties such as low-strain shear modulus (Gmax), modulus ratio (G/Gmax), and damping ratio (D) variation with shear strain along with the liquefaction potential of soils. Several field and laboratory element testing techniques are available for assessing the behavior of soils to dynamic loads. This article describes some of the widely used field and laboratory testing techniques for the dynamic investigations of soils. Typical results using each test are also provided for easy and comprehensive understanding to the reader. Analytical formulations based on the experimental results were provided and the present experimental data is compared with the data of Indian sandy soils from the literature. Furthermore, a seismic ground response study has been performed to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed formulations.

Keywords

Dynamic soil properties Maximum shear modulus Damping ratio Field tests Laboratory element tests Analytical formulations Ground response analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Kumar, S.S., Murali Krishna, A., Dey, A.: Parameters influencing dynamic soil properties: a review treatise. Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. 3, 47–60 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hardin, B.O., Richart, F.E.: Elastic wave velocities in granular soils. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 89, 33–65 (1963)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vucetic, M.: Cyclic threshold shear strains in soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 120, 2208–2228 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kramer, S.L.: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, 1st edn. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M.: Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 97, 1249–1273 (1971)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seed, H.B., Lee, K.L.: Liquefaction of saturated sands during cyclic loading. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 92, 105–134 (1966)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Idriss, I.M., Boulanger, R.W.: Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 26, 115–130 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.11.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Andrus, R., Stokoe, K.H.: Liquefaction resistance of soils from shearwave velocity. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 126, 1015–1025 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krishna, A.M., Madhav, M.R.: Engineering of ground for liquefaction mitigation using granular columnar inclusions: recent developments. Am. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2, 526–536 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.3844/ajeassp.2009.526.536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arany, L., Bhattacharya, S., Macdonald, J.H.G., Hogan, S.J.: Closed form solution of Eigen frequency of monopile supported offshore wind turbines in deeper waters incorporating stiffness of substructure and SSI. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 83, 18–32 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.12.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wu, G., Finn, W.D.L.: Dynamic nonlinear analysis of pile foundations using finite element method in the time domain. 3, 44–52 (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mondal, G., Prashant, A., Jain, S.K.: Simplified seismic analysis of soil-well-pier system for bridges. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 32, 42–55 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Phillips, C., Hashash, Y.M.A.: Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 29, 1143–1158 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dammala, P.K., Krishna, A.M., Bhattacharya, S., et al.: Dynamic soil properties for seismic ground response studies in Northeastern India. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 100, 357–370 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pain, A., Choudhury, D., Bhattacharyya, S.K.: Effect of dynamic soil properties and frequency content of harmonic excitation on the internal stability of reinforced soil retaining structure. Geotext. Geomembr. 45, 471–486 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krishna, A., Bhattacharjee, A.: Behavior of rigid-faced reinforced soil-retaining walls subjected to different earthquake ground motions. Int. J. Geomech. 17, 6016007 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dash, S.R., Govindaraju, L., Bhattacharya, S.: A case study of damages of the Kandla Port and Customs Office tower supported on a mat-pile foundation in liquefied soils under the 2001 Bhuj earthquake. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 29, 333–346 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sarkar, R., Bhattacharya, S., Maheshwari, B.K.: Seismic requalification of pile foundations in liquefiable soils. 44, 183–195 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-014-0112-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dammala, P.K., Bhattacharya, S., Krishna, A.M., et al.: Scenario based seismic re-qualification of caisson supported major bridges? A case study of Saraighat Bridge. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 100, 270–275 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.06.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Park, C.B., Miller, R.D., Xia, J.: Multichannel analysis of surface waves. Geophysics 64, 800–808 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chung, R., Yokel, F., Drnevich, V.: Evaluation of dynamic properties of sands by resonant column testing. Geotech. Test. J. 7, 60 (1984).  https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10594JCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Viggiani, G., Atkinson, J.H.: Interpretation of bender element tests. Geotechnique 149–154 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    El Mohtar, C.S., Drnevich, V.P., Santagata, M., Bobet, A.: Combined resonant column and cyclic triaxial tests for measuring undrained shear modulus reduction of sand with plastic fines. Geotech. Test. J. 36, 1–9 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20120129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kumar, S.S., Krishna, A.M., Dey, A.: Dynamic properties and liquefaction behaviour of cohesive soil in northeast India under staged cyclic loading. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 1–10 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Drnevich, V.P., Hardin, B.O., Shippy, D.J.: Modulus and damping of soils by the resonant column method. Dyn. Geotech. Test. Am. Soc. Test. Mater. Spec. Tech. Publ. 654(654), 91–125 (1978)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Peacock, W., Seed, H.B.: Sand liquefaction under cyclic loading simple shear conditions. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 94, 689–708 (1968)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ishihara, K., Li, S.: Liquefaction of saturated sand in triaxial torsion shear test. Soils Found. 12, 19–39 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kokusho, T.: Cyclic triaxial test of dynamic soil properties for wide strain range. Soils Found. 20, 45–59 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Saran, S.: Soil Dynamics and Machine Foundations. Galhotia Publication, New Delhi, India (1999)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kashyap, S.S., Krishna, A.M., Dey, A.: Analysis of active MASW test data for a convergent shear wave velocity profile. In: Lehane, A.-M.K. (ed.) Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterisation, Sydney, Australia, pp. 951–956 (2016)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Taipodia, J., Dey, A., Baglari, D.: Influence of data acquisition and signal preprocessing parameters on the resolution of dispersion image from active MASW survey. J. Geophys. Eng. 15, 1310–1326 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-2140/aaaf4cCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Foti, S., Hollender, F., Garofalo, F., et al.: Guidelines for the good practice of surface wave analysis: a product of the InterPACIFIC project. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 16, 2367–2420 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0206-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stokoe, K.H., Woods, R.D.: In situ shear wave velocity by cross-hole method. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 98, 443–460 (1972)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Garofalo, F., Foti, S., Hollender, F., et al.: InterPACIFIC project: comparison of invasive and non-invasive methods for seismic site characterization. Part I: Intra-comparison of surface wave methods. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 82, 222–240 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.12.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Garofalo, F., Foti, S., Hollender, F., et al.: InterPACIFIC project: comparison of invasive and non-invasive methods for seismic site characterization. Part II: Inter-comparison between surface-wave and borehole methods. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 82, 241–254 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.12.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Taipodia, J., Ram, B., Baglari, D., et al.: Geophysical investigations for identification of subsurface. In: Indian Geotechnical Conference. JNTU, Kakinada (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lawrence, F.J.: Propagation velocity of ultrasonic waves through sand (1963)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shirley, D.J., Hampton, L.D., Shirley, D.J., Hampton, L.D.: Shear-wave measurements in laboratory sediments. J. Accoustical Soc. Am. 63, 607–613 (1978).  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.381760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shirley, D.J.: An improved shear wave transducer. J. Accoustical Soc. Am. 63, 163–1645 (1978).  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.381866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Arulnathan, R., Boulanger, R.W., Riemer, M.: Analysis of bender element tests. Geotech. Test. J. 21, 120–131 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kumar, S.S., Krishna, A.M., Dey, A.: Evaluation of dynamic properties of sandy soil at high cyclic strains. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 99, 157–167 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.05.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Iida, K.: The velocity of elastic waves in sand. Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst. 16, 131–145 (1938)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hardin, B.O.: Suggested Methods of Test for Shear Modulus and Damping of Soils by the Resonant Column, pp. 516–529 (1970)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Selig, E., Chung, R., Yokel, F., Drnevich, V.: Evaluation of dynamic properties of sands by resonant column testing. Geotech. Test. J. 7, 60 (1984).  https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10594JCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    ASTM D4015: Standard Test Methods for Modulus and Damping of Soils by Resonant-Column, pp. 1–22 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1520/d4015-07.1
  46. 46.
    Hall, J.R., Richart Jr., F.: Dissipation of elastic wave energy in granular soils. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 89, 27–56 (1963)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Woods, R.D.: Measurement of dynamic soil properties: a state of the art. In: Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers Special Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Pasadena, pp. 91–180 (1978)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hardin, B.O., Music, J.: Apparatus for vibration of soil specimens during the triaxial test. ASTM STP 392, 55–74 (1965)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dammala, P.K., Kumar, S.S., Krishna, A.M., Bhattacharya, S.: Dynamic soil properties and liquefaction potential of northeast Indian soil for effective stress analysis. Bull. Earthq. Eng. (under review)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sitharam, T., Govindaraju, L., Sridharan, A.: Dynamic properties and liquefaction potential of soils. Curr. Sci. 87:1370–1378 (2004)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lombardi, D., Bhattacharya, S., Hyodo, M., Kaneko, T.: Undrained behaviour of two silica sands and practical implications for modelling SSI in liquefiable soils. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 66, 293–304 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.07.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kumar, S., Krishna, A., Dey, A.: High strain dynamic properties of perfectly dry and saturated cohesionless soil. Indian Geotech. J. 1–9 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-017-0255-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kumar, S.S., Dey, A., Krishna, A.M.: Response of saturated cohesionless soil subjected to irregular seismic excitations. Nat. Hazards 93, 509–529 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3312-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    ASTM D3999: Standard test methods for the determination of the modulus and damping properties of soils using the cyclic triaxial apparatus. Am. Soc. Test. Mater. 91, 1–16 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1520/d3999-11e01.1.6
  55. 55.
    ASTM D5311: Standard test method for load controlled cyclic triaxial strength of soil. Astm D5311 92, 1–11 (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1520/d5311
  56. 56.
    Kjellman, W.: Testing the shear strength of clay in Sweden. Geotechnique 2, 225–232 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bjerrum, L., Landva, A.: Direct simple shear tests on a Norwegian quick clay. Geotechnique 16, 1–20 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lanzo, G., Vucetic, M., Doroudian, M.: Reduction of shear modulus at small strains in simple shear. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 123, 1035–1042 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(1997)123:11(1035)
  59. 59.
    Dammala, P.K., Adapa, M.K., Bhattacharya, S., Aingaran, S.: Cyclic response of cohesionless soil using cyclic simple shear testing. In: 6th International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, ICRAGEE, pp. 1–10 (2016)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M.: Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis (1970)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Darendeli, M.: Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and Material Damping. University of Texas (2001)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kumar, S.S., Adapa, M.K., Dey, A.: Importance of site-specific dynamic soil properties for seismic ground response studies. Int. J. Geotech. Earthq. Eng. (2018) (In press)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bai, L.: Preloading Effects on Dynamic Sand Behavior by Resonant Column Tests. Technischen Universität, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hardin, B.O.: The nature of stress-strain behavior of soils. In: Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. ASCE, Pasadena, CA, pp. 3–90 (1978)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Chattaraj, R., Sengupta, A.: Liquefaction potential and strain dependent dynamic properties of Kasai River sand. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 90, 467–475 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.07.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Saxena, S.K., Reddy, K.R.: Dynamic moduli and damping ratios for Monterey No.0 sand by resonant column tests. Soils Found. 29, 37–51 (1989).  https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.29.2_37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hardin, B.O., Drnevich, V.P.: Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and curves. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. SM7, 667–692 (1972)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ishibashi, I., Zhang, X.: Unified dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios of sand and clay. Soils Found. Jpn. Soc. Soil Mech. Found. Eng. 33, 182–191 (1993).  https://doi.org/10.1248/cpb.37.3229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Zhang, J., Andrus, R.D., Juang, C.H.: Normalized shear modulus and material damping ratio relationships. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 131, 453–464 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2005)131:4(453)
  70. 70.
    Vardanega, P.J., Ph, D., Asce, M., et al.: Stiffness of clays and silts: normalizing shear modulus and shear strain. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 9, 1575–1589 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Matasovic, N., Vucetic, M.: Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 119, 1805–1822 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Hashash, Y.M., Dashti, S., Romero, M.I., et al.: Evaluation of 1-D seismic site response modeling of sand using centrifuge experiments. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 78, 19–31 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Dobry, R., Pierce, W., Dyvik, R., et al.: Pore Pressure Model for Cyclic Straining of Sand. Troy, NY (1985)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Martin, G., Finn, W., Seed, H.: Fundamentals of liquefaction under cyclic loading. J. Geotech. Div. 101, 423–438 (1975)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Byrne, P.: A cyclic shear-volume coupling and pore-pressure model for sand. In: Second International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri, pp. 47–55 (1991)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Hashash, Y.M.A., Musgrouve, M.I., Harmon, J.A., et al.: DEEPSOIL 6.1, User Manual (2016)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Vucetic, M., Dobry, R.: Cyclic triaxial strain-controlled testing of liquefiable sands. In: Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock, pp. 475–485 (1988).  https://doi.org/10.1520/stp29093s
  78. 78.
    Kirar, B., Maheshwari, B.K.: Dynamic properties of soils at large strains in Roorkee region using field and laboratory tests. Indian Geotech. J. 48, 125–141 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-017-0258-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Maheshwari, B.K., Kirar, B.: Dynamic properties of soils at low strains in Roorkee region using resonant column tests. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 6362, 1–12 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1365474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Dutta, T.T., Saride, S.: Influence of shear strain on the Poisson’s ratio of clean sands. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 34, 1359–1373 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-016-0047-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Park, D., Hashash, Y.M.A.: Rate-dependent soil behavior in seismic site response analysis. Can. Geotech. J. 45, 454–469 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1139/T07-090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Hashash, Y.M., Groholski, D.R.: Recent advances in non-linear site response analysis. In: Fifth International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics Symposium, Honor Profr IM Idriss, vol. 29, pp. 1–22 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Basu, D., Dey, A., Kumar, S.S.: One-dimensional effective stress non-Masing nonlinear ground response analysis of IIT Guwahati. Int. J. Geotech. Earthq. Eng. 8, 1–27 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Kumar, S.S., Krishna, A.M.: Importance of site-specific dynamic soil properties for seismic ground response studies. Importance of site-specific dynamic soil properties for seismic ground response studies. Int. J. Geotech. Earthq. Eng. 9, 1–21 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGEE.2018010105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    IS:1893: Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Indian Stand. 1–44 (2002)Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Ajom, B.E., Bhattacharjee, A.: Seismic re-qualification of Caisson supported Dhansiri River Bridge. In: Tunneling in Soft Ground, Ground Conditioning and Modification Techniques, pp 187–203 (2019)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Raghu Kanth, S.T.G., Sreelatha, S., Dash, S.K.: Ground motion estimation at Guwahati city for an Mw 8.1 earthquake in the Shillong plateau. Tectonophysics 448, 98–114 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2007.11.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Kumar, A., Harinarayan, N.H., Baro, O.: High amplification factor for low amplitude ground motion: assessment for Delhi. Disaster Adv. 8, 1–11 (2015)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Romero, S.M., Rix, G.: Ground Motion Amplification of Soils in the Upper Mississippi Embayment. MAE Center CD Release 05-01 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations