Energy Dissipation Response of Unsaturated Cohesive Soil Under Dynamic Loading Conditions

  • Saloni PandyaEmail author
  • Ajanta Sachan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 55)


Partially saturated soils are commonly encountered in various geotechnical engineering projects across the world. Existence of matric suction in the three-phase system of unsaturated soil governs its strength and volumetric response. Environmental changes cause alterations in the geometric arrangement of unsaturated soil due to seasonal variation in the matric suction of soil leading to change in mechanical response of unsaturated soils. Cyclic high/low amplitude loading on soils such as seismic loading, machine vibrations, wave loading, traffic loading, blast loading, etc., can instigate the loss in strength and stability of soils. Energy dissipation during cyclic loading can provide information regarding internal deformation characteristics of soils. Current study evaluates the influence of initial static loading, matric suction, dry density and water content on the energy dissipation characteristics of unsaturated cohesive soil. Series of strain-controlled cyclic triaxial tests were conducted on cohesive soil from Ahmedabad (India) under unsaturated conditions (as-compacted) at varying initial static axial strain (S), dry density and water content. In-contact filter paper method was used to evaluate matric suction of Ahmedabad soil. Application of different axial strain (S) significantly affected the cumulative energy dissipation (ΔWT) of unsaturated cohesive soil. Matric suction of soil exhibited significant impact on the energy dissipation characteristics of Ahmedabad cohesive soil. Dry density of unsaturated Ahmedabad cohesive soil was observed to play an important role in the energy dissipation characteristics. Substantial energy dissipation along with larger stiffness degradation indicated soil under unsaturated conditions to be metastable and prone to severe damages during dynamic loading conditions.


Unsaturated Matric suction Cyclic triaxial testing Energy dissipation 


  1. 1.
    Fredlund DG, Rahardjo H (1993) Soil mechanics for unsaturated soils. WileyGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fredlund DG, Morgenstern NR, Widger RA (1978) The shear strength of unsaturated soils. Can Geotech J 15(3):313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fredlund DG, Vanapalli SK (2002) Shear strength of unsaturated soils. Methods Soil Anal Part 4:329–361Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rahardjo H, Lim TT, Chang MF, Fredlund DG (1995) Shear-strength characteristics of a residual soil. Can Geotech J 32(1):60–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vanapalli SK, Pufahl DE, Fredlund DG (1999) Interpretation of the shear strength of unsaturated soils in undrained loading conditions. In: Proceedings of 52nd Canadian geotechnical conference, Regina, Sask, pp 25–27Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pandya S, Sachan A (2017) Effect of matric suction and initial static loading on dynamic behaviour of unsaturated cohesive soil. Int J Geotech Eng Taylor & Francis 12(5):438–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pandya S, Sachan A (2017) Variation of collapse potential and stiffness degradation with matric suction of compacted unsaturated cohesive soil. Int J Geotech Eng Taylor & Francis, online available, 07 Nov 2017Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boulanger RW, Arulnathan R, Jr LF H, Torres RA, Driller, MW (1998) Dynamic properties of Sherman Island peat. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(1):12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cavallaro A, Presti DCL, Maugeri M (2001) The degradation behaviour of Fabriano soil during cyclic loading. Italian Geotech J 35(2):108–117Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Delfosse-Ribay E, Djeran-Maigre I, Cabrillac R, Gouvenot D (2004) Shear modulus and damping ratio of grouted sand. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 24(6):461–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jiang, M, Cai Z, Cao P, Liu D (2010) Effect of cyclic loading frequency on dynamic properties of marine clay. In: Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, pp 240–245Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khan Z, El Naggar MH, Cascante G (2011) Frequency dependent dynamic properties from resonant column and cyclic triaxial tests. J Franklin Inst 348(7):1363–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moses GG, Rao SN (2003) Degradation in cemented marine clay subjected to cyclic compressive loading. Mar Georesour Geotechnol 21(1):37–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sitharam TG, Govindaraju L, Sridharan A (2004) Dynamic properties and liquefaction potential of soils. Curr Sci 87(10):1370–1387Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Soralump S, Prasomsri J (2015) Cyclic pore water pressure generation and stiffness degradation in compacted clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(1): 04015060-1-.04015060-13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vucetic M, Dobry R (1988) Degradation of marine clays under cyclic loading. J Geotech Eng 114(2):133–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhou J, Gong X (2001) Strain degradation of saturated clay under cyclic loading. Can Geotech J 38(1):208–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ASTM D5298-10 (2013). Standard test method for measurement of soil potential (suction) using filter paper. D5298-10, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Voznesensky EA, Nordal S (1999) Dynamic instability of clays: an energy approach. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 18(2):125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Okur V, Ansal A (2011) Evaluation of cyclic behavior of fine-grained soils using the energy method. J Earthquake Eng 15(4):601–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology GandhinagarAhmedabadIndia

Personalised recommendations