Missouri University of Science and Technology

Scholars' Mine
International Conferences on Recent Advances in 1981 - First International Conference on Recent
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
Dynamics & Soil Dynamics

Apr 26th - May 3rd

Load, Deformation and Strength Behavior of Soils

under Dynamic Loadings
Marshall L. Silver
University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icrageesd

Part of the Geotechnical Engineering Commons

Recommended Citation
Silver, Marshall L., "Load, Deformation and Strength Behavior of Soils under Dynamic Loadings" (1981). International Conferences on
Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. 18.
http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icrageesd/01icrageesd/session01/18

This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in International
Conferences on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This
work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder.
For more information, please contact [email protected].
Load, Deformation and Strength Behavior of Soils
under Dynamic Loadings
Marshall L. Silver
University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois

SYNOPSIS The state of the art is summarized for the evaluation of the stress, strain and strength
properties of soils in terms of appropriate test equipment, test procedures a11d :.:h" presentation of
test results in both the laboratory and the field. Different testing requirements for measuring
soil properties for l) design and analysis problems and 2) for constitutive property modeling are
compared and recommendations on minimum test result reporting requirements are given. In addition,
methods for overcoming equipment and test procedure limitations are presented.
The importance of combining field and laboratory test results is stressed and ways to make
more extensive use of geophysical test measurements to obtain insitu soil properties are summarized.
On a site specific basis, it appears that geophysical test results may correlate well with many
soil index properties and measures of insitu soil dynamic properties. Thus, much useful site
information may be obtained by combining a limited geophysical test program and a more extensive
traditional site investigation program.

INTRODUCTION
It is a great pleasure and honor to be Unfortunately, most of the published data
asked to prepare a state of the art report on in the literature is unusable for both purposes.
load, deformation and strength behavior of Published literature describin~ the results of
soils under dynamic loading. In the beginning cyclic or dynamic laboratory and field tests is
of this effort it quickly became apparent that almost always lacking in sufficient information
three methods could be used to prepare this on l) index properties values, 2) test procedu-
report: res, 3) specimen preparation methods, 4) the
effect of the number of loading cycles on
l. Summarize dynamic soil behavior by dynamic behavior and pore pressure response and
cataloging and tabulating test results reported 5) the experimental state of stress(particular-
in the literature for various types of soils. ly for field tests). Without this information,
the practitioner is unable to make a meaningful
2. Summarize what is known about the comparison between measured dynamic soil pro-
dynamic behavior of soils and propose a consti- perties reported in the literature and the
tutive relationship or model to analytically estimated dynamic soil prope~ties of his project
describe this behavior. soils. Similarly, without this information the
researcher has incomplete data on which to base
3. Present guidance in the selection of or to test his constitutive model.
test procedures and aprropriate data from the
laboratory, the field or from the literature Well qualified investigators have used the
for analysis, design and for the development second method for preparinq a state of the art
of constitutive relationships. report and have summarized-what is known about
the dynamic behavior of soils (Yoshimi, et al,
A ~abulation of available data is very 1978). further, a number of investigators have
useful to the profession. Excellent and useful proposed constitutive models to describe dynamic
summaries have been prepared by Seed and Idriss soil behavior as will be described subsequently.
(1970), Hardin and Drnevich (l972a and b), It would seem of little useful purpose to add a
cerrito, et al (1979) and others. description of the author's favorite constitutive
relationship here in this state of the art.
A good summary of available data allows
practitioners involved in analysis and design Because of the incomplete nature of the
to select appropriate dynamic soil property published data on dynamic soil behavior, because
values from the published literature for use of the excellent summaries of dynamic soil
in their particular problem. A good summary behavior already published and because of the
of available data also gives the theoritician number of constitutive relationships already
and researcher insight into soil behavior and proposed, the third approach which provides
experimental values useful for the development guidance in selecting data from the literature
of constitutive models. seems a better method for preparing a state of
the art report on t~e subject of dynamic soil
behavior.

873
 874

To be useful, such a state of the art The relative advantages and disadvantages
should describe the advantages and disadvan- of laboratory testing and field testing are
tages of the various types of laboratory and well known (Woods, 1978). Advantages of field
field test procedures, evaluate the state of testing are that a large mass of soil is studied
stress which is imposed in each type of test, and in some cases sample disturbance can be
explain experimental problems that can influ- minimized. Disadvantages of field testing are
ence the reported test results, and make difficulty in controlling the boundary condi-
suggestions for minimum data requirements in tions of the test and the small strain levels
order to make published data useful in analysis that can generally be developed. Advantages
and design problems. Further, it must be of laboratory testing are the ease with which
remembered that both laboratory and field test parameters can be varied and the ability
techniques may be used to provide data on the to define boundary conditions of the test.
dynamic load, deformation and strength beha'Jior Disadvantage of laboratory testing include dis-
of soils. Thus, this state of the art report turbance caused by sampling required to obtain
on the subject will include an evaluation of representative field samples for laboratory
both field and laboratory dynamic test methods testing.
and test results.
Thus, it is clear that the advantages and
With these goals in mind, the following disadvantages of field testing are strongly
pages describe recent advances in the develop- balanced by the disadvantages and advantages of
ment of experimental dynamic test methods, laboratory testing. Therefore by combining
present requirements for the reporting of laboratory and field testing in the same exper-
dynamic soil test results and critically imental program more information can be obtain-
describe how to evaluate the usefulness of ed than if only laboratory or only field test-
published literature describing dynamic stress- ing is used.
strain and strength properties of soils. This
discussion is intended to provide the practic- Non-Linear Cycle Dependent Stress-Strain Behav-
ing engineer with guidance in the selection of lOr.
data from the literature useful in preliminary
evaluation of soil-structure interaction prob- Both laboratory testing and field testing
lems and soil stability problems. This must model the non-linear, hysteretic, stress-
discussion is also intended to help the resear- strain behavior of soils. c·loreover, these hy-
cher in selecting data for constitutive rela- steretic properties also change with increasing
tionships. Further, it is hoped that the numbers of loading cycles. A number of simpli-
criteria described in this paper will help to fications have been used to represent this com-
improve the quality of experimental data plicated soil stress-strain behavior as shown
published in the literature so that the data in Figure l. Once an appropriate stress-strain
will be more complete and thus more helpful representation has been chosen (Figure lc), it
to the profession. is necessary to model the effect of strain
level on properties (Figure la) . At low strain
values, modulus values are high and damping
BACKGROUND values (proportional to the size of the hyste-
resis loop) are low. On the other hand, for
Existing State of the Art Reports high strain values, modulus values decrease
and damping values increase.
A number of excellent state of the art
reports has been prepared in the last few years The effect of number of loading cycles on
that may be used to help evaluate load, defor- stress-strain behavior is shown in Figure (lb)
mation strength behavior of soils under dynamic where it may be seen that for dry sand, modulus
loads. An annotated list of many of these values increase and damping values decrease
state of the art reports is presented in Tablel. with increasing numbers of cycles (Silver and
.seed, 1971). On the other hand for saturated
Over 1400 references are included in the sands and clays, modulus values decrease and
state of the art papers described in Table 1. damping values increase with increasing numbers
It is the goal of this report to draw upon the of cycles (Silver and Park, 1976). In the
information and conclusions provided in these worst case, with increasing number of cycles,
papers to provide guidance in ways to evaluate the pore pressure can rise to values equivalent
and measure dynamic load, deformation and to the confining pressure and the soil can
strength behavior of soils. loose all strength. This is commonly called
liquefaction and can result in the development
Laboratory Testing Versus Field Testing of large strains.

As described previously, both laboratory Soil Behavior Testing

and field tests are available for measuring
load deformation and strength behavior of Historically, there have always been two
soils under dynamic loads. A number of the classes of results from static tests or dynamic
elements involved in field testing are common tests performed either in the laboratory or in
to laboratory testing. Thus, it is desirable the field. The first class of test results
to discuss the features of both field and labo- gives the engineer basic information for analy-
ratory tests together before preparing a detair sis and design. Such test results may not be
ed description of the state of the art for both an exact representation of insitu soil behavior.
types of testing. However, these tests do provide material proper-
ty values which, when combined with experience
give design values useful in the analysis and '
 875

design of soil structures and foundation sys- l. The boundary conditions of the experi-
tems. For example, the direct shear test pro- ment must be understood.
vided one of the earliest methods of determin-
ing soil behavior and soil strength. In the 2. The limitations of the test equipment
early years of geotechnical engineering prac- must be understood. This requires an evalua-
tice, engineers confidently used the results tion and measurement of equipment friction and
of direct shear tests for the analysis of compliance.
many soil problems. With time, the profession
started to learn more about the limitations 3. The limitations of the test procedures
of the direct shear test and the test lost must be understood. This includes an under-
favor. Recent work, however, has brought the standing of the effect of specimen preparation
direct shear test back into repute and today techniques, saturation methods and consolida-
it is a popular item in the soils laboratory tion procedures on measured soil behavior.
where it is being used to study the ultimate
or residual strength of soils. 4. The entire stress-strain behavior of
soil must be measured and adequately reported
The goal of a test like the direct shear as a function of 1) time, both during the
test should be to obtain design information. static phase of the test and during the appli-
The test does not (and often can not) exactly cation of cyclic load, 2) strain level, and 3)
match field conditions. Rather, test results stress level. Without such information little
should be reproducible between operators and use can be made of the data in the development
laboratories. By combining reproducible test of constitutive relationships.
results and the results of field case history
studies meaningful design procedures can be A review of the published literature shows that
developed. The experimental value of the re- these four criteria are seldom if ever met at
sults obtained from these soil property tests the present time.
is not as important as the ability to repro-
duce test results given the same input para-
meters. h'e s;-wuld be concerned with the USE OF LABORATORY TEST METHODS
goal of obtaining reproducible test results TO DETERMINE THE DYNAMIC
in both the field and in the laboratory which STRESS-STRAIN AND STRENGTH PROPERTIES
are useful as index values of soil behavior. OF SOILS

Thus, the need in soil behavior testing

in both laboratory and field studies is to pre- A comprehensive state of the art paper
pare meaningful and adequate test procedures describing various types of laboratory test
that can be followed to help ensure that test equipment that can be used to study dynamic
results are reproducible between various lab- stress-strain and strength properties of soils
oratories and operators. This has been done was presented by Woods (1978). Figure 2 shows
for the cyclic triaxial strength test (Silver, the shear strain amplitude capabilities of
1978), and for the resonant column test various classes of laboratory test equipment
(Drnevich, 1978). Additional standardization and Table 2 describes the various dynamic
of insitu tests has been described by the properties that can be measured with the
Corps of Engineers (1980). More effort in various classes of equipment.
this area for other tests is required.
Common to all classes of laboratory test
Constitutive Behavior Testing equipment is the measurement of parameters
needed to define the static or dynamic labora-
A second class of experiments performed tory stress-strain and strength properties
both in the laboratory and in the field are These parameters are only load, deformation
to obtain experimental soil property values and pore water pressure. A description of how
useful for the development of constitutive re- these parameters are measured for each class
lationships. Such tests are best developed of laboratory test is shown in Table 3. It
using guidance from the constitutive relation- may be seen that load measurements are routine-
ships to aid in the design of the test techni- ly made and few problems are encountered with
que. Nonetheless, tests useful in providing the measurement. Further, axial and shear
constitutive relationships for soils must be strains are also routinely measured with little
much better than tests which provide design problem. More difficult, however, is the
values. It is meaningless to use poorly mea- measurement of lateral deformation during shear.
sured soil properties in a sophisticated con- Such deformation measurements are often criti-
stitutive relationship and it is embarrassing cal to the evaluation of test results yet these
to find that a constitutive relationship ac- measurements are often not made or not properly
curately predicts experimental soil behavior made. The result is that important data is not
which subsequent evaluation shows to be in- available for test evaluation and test result
correct. interpretation.
Thus the goal of constitutive behavior Further, it may be seen in the table that
testing is to understand the test. Therefore pore pressure values are normally measured at
the following minimum criteria is required to the boundary of the specimen. This is probably
obtain adequate values of soil behavior for acceptable for dynamic tests on cohesionless
the development of constitutive relationships: materials where pore pressure equalization is
almost instantaneous. On the other hand, for
 876

clay specimens where pore pressure equaliza- Membrane Penetration. Membrane penetra-
tion may take a significant amount of time, tion can cause errors ln measuring the pore
pore pressure measurements at the boundary may pressure response of cohesionless soils. This
not represent the average pore pressure through is summarized in Table 4 which shows results of
out the specimen (Sangrey,et al, 1978). measurements of membrane penetration performed
by various researchers. In general, the effect
Important Considerations Common to the Evalua- of membrane penetration is to underestimate
tlon of all Classes of Laboratory Test Results pore pressure values in contractive s~ils_and_
to overestimate pore pressure values ln dllatlve
No matter what test is performed and how soils. However, there is some evidence to sug-
the test parameters are measured,there are gest that the effect of membrane penetration
certain important considerations common to the may decrease for large particle sizes and for
evaluation of all classes of laboratory test large samples.
results. These considerations include:
It is clear that more research must be
1. Specimen preparation conducted to assess the effect of membrane pene-
2. Effect of time tration on dynamic stress-strain and strength
3. Equipment friction properties of cohesionless materials. However,
4. Membrane penetration the effect of membrane penetration may turn out
5. Field sampling effects to be unimportant for tests used in design and
6. Specimen boundary conditions and the analysis problems. On the other hand, an
internal state of stress understanding of membrane penetration effects
clearly influences our ability to develop cons-
Incomplete understanding of the effect of titutive relationships for soils. Thus, a
each one of these parameters or errors in inter comprehehsive state of the art report on this
preting their effect can influence dynamic soil subject with suggestions on how to evaluate the
test results. Therefore, it is meaningful to effect of membrane penetration for various types
discuss the influence of each of these para- of dynamic laboratory tests needs to be prepared
meters in more detail. and new research should be undertaken to comple-
te our understanding of this important consi-
Apparatus Friction. Methods for reducing deration.
the friction are well known and have been
documented (Silver, 1976). Mechanical means Sampling and Disturbance Effects on Cohe-
for reducing friction includes 0-rings, quad- sive Solls. Sampllng dlsturbance has a large
rings, rolling diagrams, rotating bushings and effect ln cohesive soils l) on residual pore
air bearings. However, in some cases it is not pressure remaining after loading, 2) on changes
possible to minimize the effect of friction in pore water pressure during loading and 3) ~n
satisfactorily in the test apparatus. When internal migration of pore water and changes ln
this occurs, it is often possible to put the water content throughout the sample. However,
transducers directly within the test chamber to sampling effects can be evaluated by making X-
measure test parameters. Nonetheless, no radiographs of the core, by measuring pore water
matter which method is used to minimize friction, pressure after sampling, by evaluating volume
it is important that the values are measured change during consolidation, and by evaluating
and the measurement methods are documented so axial strain during shear. Experience may be
that the effect of friction can be considered used to relate these measurements to an evalua-
when evaluating the quality of the test results. tion of the amount of the disturbance in the
sample (Broms, 19 80 l •
Platten Design Requirements. The require-
ments for successful platten design are l) to When the amount of disturbance is unnacept-
minimize weight, 2) to provide sufficient fric- able, disturbance effects can be reduced by
tion to hold the sample without slippage, or using better samples or by taking block samples
3) to provide a frictionless end condition. (Horn, 19 79) . A systematic representation of
Methods such as epoxying the test material to the influence of sample disturbance on shear
the platten (particularly effective with strength is shown in Figure 3. It may be seen
cohesionless materials), fins, pins and adhesive that block samples give higher test results than
are proven methods for holding the sample to 5 inch and 3 inch tube samples whereas 2 inch
the platten (Drnevich, 1978 l. In some cases tubes give much lower test results that may
just the opposite effect is required and fric- significantly underestimate shear strength
tionless end plattens have been used (Lee, 1975). values. Anisotropic consolidation or consolida-
In general, a comparison of dynamic test results tion past the insitu pressure may also be used
with and without frictionless end plattens shows to reduce the effect of sample disturbance in
little difference. This is probably due to the cohesive soils (Ladd and Foote, 1975).
fact that commonly used frictionless end plat-
ten techniques are not completely effective at Sampling and Disturbance Effects on Cohesionless
common cyclic loading rates of l Hz. It is Soils
probably necessary to reduce the testing fre-
quency to much less than 0.1 Hz to see the Sampling disturbance probably has a larger
effect of frictionless end plattens. For this effect on cohesionless soils than on cohesive
reason, frictionless end plattens are generally soils. For example, sampling disturbance af-
not used in cyclic tests. fects both soil density and the arrangement of
soil particles (which is the fabric of the soil).
 877

Sampling effects can be evaluated however, by plots stress distribution ln loaded soil sam-
making X-radiographs of sample tubes (Krinitzs- ples in the triaxial test (Gerard and Wardle,
ky, 1970). X-raying of tubes should be a rou- 1971). A much more complicated state of stress
tine technique in any important project where exists in other types of laboratory equipment
laboratory tests are to be performed on cohe- such as the simple shear test and the torsional
sionless materials. shear test (Saada, et al., 1980).

Marcuson and Franklin (1979) have summar- However, it must be remembered that a labo-
ized methods for taking better undisturbed ratory test does not have to exactly model in-
samples of cohesionless soils for laboratory situ conditions to give useful test values for
testing. Recent experience has shown that design and analysis. If the test measures
careful field work can obtain high quality essential physical factors that underlie and
undisturbed samples of many sands using a fixed dictates the pattern of insitu behavior, useful
piston sampler with drilling mud. However, information can be expected from the test. On
dense sands tend to loosen and loose sands the other hand for the development of constitu-
densify. Further, the use of radiographs tive relationships,much better understanding of
adequate and reliable non-destructive method equipment boundary conditions and the internal
for determining layering and degree of distur- state of stress is required in order to proper-
bance of the sample. On the other hand, the ly use experimental test results.
only reliable method of recovering undisturbed
samples with gravel is by hand carving block Time Effects
samples in test pits. Further, in place freez-
ing and coring may provide a better method Time effects influence results from all
for obtaining undisturbed samples. classes of laboratory tests and these effects
can be very significant.
Even with careful sampling there is still
controversy over the ratio of undisturbed to Time effects must be considered both for
remolded strength of cohesionless materials. consolidation and for testing. For example,
This is shown on Table 5 which plots the ratio Anderson, Stokoe and their coworkers have shown
of undisturbed to remolded strength reported for resonant column tests that the time for
by various investigators (SGed, et al, consolidation of specimens will influence low
1975). Horn (1979) describes how such compa- amplitude modulus values. This effect
risons are difficult to make and interpret. is shown in Figure 6 which plots modulus as a
For example, Figure 4 shows typical results of function of shear strain for specimens consol-
cyclic triaxial strength tests performed on idated l day, l week and 1 month. Also shown
intact and on reconstituted specimens of the on the plot is estimated field performance
same material. It may bG seen that the rela- obtainGd from field insitu geophysical tests.
tionship between strain build up and the number Clearl~ an estimate of field consolidation time
of cycles is different for reconstituted and must be made before it is possible to use the
undisturbed specimen. Thus, for low numbers results of laboratory tests to predict field
of cycles and low values of cyclic strain, it performance. Methods for making these estimates
would appear that undisturbed test specimens are described by Anderson and Stokoe (1978).
are stronger than reconstituted test specimens.
On the other hand for high numbers of cycles Consolidation time also influences cyclic
and larger values of strain, it would appear triaxial strength results and by inference,
that reconstituted test specimens are stronger consolidation time probably influences cyclic
than undisturbed test specimens, Thus, the triaxial properties test results as well. This
selection of failure criteria affects the is shown in Figure 7 which shows the cyclic
ratio of undisturbed to remolded strength. On strength of soil specimens consolidated for
a site specific basis where a given failure various lengths of time. It may be seen that
strain is selected, this strength cross over the aging effect can significantly increase
may not be important. However, when test the cyclic strength of soils (Seed, 1919 ). Thus,
results from various projects and from differ- it may be expected that aging effects will also
ent sites are compared together, this type of influence modulus values obtained from cyclic
cycle dependent behavior would give inconsist- triaxial tests.
tent comparisons. Thus, the reader is caution-
ed in evaluating the difference between test SPECIALIZED PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
results obtained from tests on undisturbed and FOR COMMON CLASSES OF CYCLIC AND
remolded specimens reported in the literature. DYNAMIC LABORATORY TEST EQUIPMENT

Specimen Boundary Conditions and Internal Previous pages have described problems
State of Stress common to all classes of laboratory test equip-
ment. However, each specific class of laborato-
There is little question that laboratory ry equipment has particular problems associated
tests do not exactly model insitu soil behavior. with testing and test interpretation. Therefor~
Thus, we must be able to assess the relative it is instructive to discuss each of these
effect of 1) sample disturbance, including classes of test equipment individually and to
density changes and fabric changes, 2) the describe methods for improving the testing pro-
state of stress on boundary of the element and cedure and test interpretation.
3) the state of the stress throughout the ele-
ment. Even for the simplest and best under- Resonant Column Test
stood test, boundary effects and the internal
state of stress can significantly influence The resonant column test is the most popu-
test results. This is shown in Figure 5 which lar low strain amplitude properties test presen~
 878

ly in use. Testing procedures have been docu- 2. Stiff low volumes change transducers
mented by Drnevich,et al (1978) and a new ASTM must be used.
Standard for the procedure should appear in
the ASTM Book of Standards in 1982. 3. The transducer volume change should
not exceed 2.5 x l0-6cm3/kN/m2.
Test details required to ensure that mean-
ingful test results are obtained have been 4. The entire pore pressure measurement
described by Drnevich (1978) who summarized system should have volume change characteristics
the important problems as ll estimating the less than 2.5 x lQ-4cm3/kNjm2.
maximum strain and amplitude capabilities of
the apparatus, 2) coupling between plattens In most laboratories throughout the world,
and specimens, 3) limiting specimen stiffness these criteria are not met with the result that
and 4) controlling air migration through the pore pressure measurements are often suspect.
membrane. Drnevich (1978) describes methods
for minimizing these detrimental effects. Effect of Specimen Density. Control of
density for reconstltuted speclmens is critical
High Strain Amplitude Cyclic Propreties Tests if reproducible test results are to be achieved.
It has been shown that densities of reconsti-
Cyclic triaxial, cyclic simple shear and tuted specimens must be ± 8 kgjm3 ( 0.5 lb/ft3)
cyclic torsional shear tests are all used to to reproduce test results between the various
obtain values of stress-strain and strength operators in different laboratories (Silver et
properties of soils at strain amplitudes al, 1976). Further, specimen measurements must
higher than can be achieved in the resonant be carefully made. A circumference tape must be
column test. Unfortunately there are no used to measure the diameter of the specimen and
published test procedures for these tests. a dial indicator should be used to measure the
Further it has been clearly shown that test height of the specimen. Calipers that contact
details can significantly influence test the side of the specimen should not be used
results. These important test details include because it has been shown that such measurements
1) equipment design, 2) deformation monitoring give incorrect values of specimen diameter.
techniques, 3) pore water pressure measurements,
4) specimen preparation, 5) specimen density, Definition of Data Evaluation Terms. No
6) length of the testing period, and 7) the matter what testlng procedure lS used lt is
definition of data evaluation terms. Each of important that the data evaluation terms used
these factors will be discussed in detail to calculate the test parameters be clearly
below. defined. In all too many cases failure criteria~
load values, deformation values and pore pres~
Equipment Design. All too often labora- sure values are not clearly defined with the
tory test equipment is not adequate to meet result that the data cannot be properly used in
the quality of test results required for both design and analysis and for the development of
analysis and design and for constitutive constitutive relationship. Figure 8 shows a
relationships. Very often the apparatus stiff- typical definition of parameters measured in
ness is not sufficient to provide accurate the cyclic triaxial properties test. No matter
rigidity for the parameters being measured. what terms or definitions are used, such plots
Further, piston friction is often excessive, should be included in all papers and reports to
alignment between the top and bottom plattens clearly tell the reviewer and reader how the
is not correct and platten design is often not test parameters are defined, how they were
acceptable. Techniques for minimizing the measured and how the test results were calcu-
effects of equipment design on test results lated.
are summarized by Silver (1976).

Pore Water Pressure Monitoring. It is Cyclic Strength Tests

unfortunate but true that most pore water
pressure measurement systems are unacceptable. Cyclic strength tests using triaxial equip-
Therefore, in many cases cyclic pore water men~ simple shear equipment and torsional equip-
pressure measurement values are often incorrect. ment are routinely performed. Test procedures
This is particularly true in clays where cyclic for cyclic triaxial tests are described by
pore water pressure measurements are probably Silver (1976) and by the Corps of Engineers
not possible to make except at low testing (1980). The same procedures can be applied to
rates (several cycles per day) because of the simple shear tests and to torsional tests. As
need for pore pressure equalization (Sangrey described previously for resonant column tests
Pollard & Egan, 1978) ·For sands, the need for and for cyclic properties tests, test details
pore pressure equalization is not as important are important if reproducible test results are
and generally it is felt that pore pressure to be obtained from cyclic strength tests. In
measurements can be made at common testing particular, the following test details, many
frequencies of 1 Hz. of which were described previously, are
important:
Certain minimum requirements for pore
pressure measurements have been suggested by 1. Equipment design
Silver (1976). These include: 2. Pore pressure measurement
3. Specimen density
1. Short, small diameter, stiff pressure 4. Length of testing period
tubing must be used. 5. Specimen preparation
6. Definition of data evaluation terms
 879

In equipment design, the shape of the loa~ USE OF GEOPHYSICAL TESTING METHODS
ing trace has been found to be extremely impor- TO DETEfu~INETHE DYNAMIC STRESS-STRAIN AND
tant (Silver, 1978). For example, Figure 9 STRENGTH PROPERTIES OF SOILS
shows acceptable and unacceptable loading trace
forms. Similarly load fall off, where the load Geophysical testing methods are well known
trace cannot keep up with the sample deforma- techniques for obtaining lithology and strati-
tio~ can affect the test results and load graphy of soils. Further, geophysical test
reduction must not be excessive. Criteria for methods may be used to obtain measures of in-
selecting appropriate traces and for evaluating situ shear wave and compressive wave velocity
test results are described in detail in Silver in underlying soil layers from which modulus
(1976). values and Poisson's ratio values can be eval-
uated.

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRESENTATION However, it appears that even more infor-
OF DYNAMIC SOIL TEST RESULTS mation on insitu dynamic soil properties may
be obtained from commonly used geophysical test
If laboratory test results are not proper- methods. This can be achieved with an improved
ly presented and material index properties are understanding of the physical nature of the
not adequately described, data both in publish- tests and a more thorough understanding of the
ed papers or in consulting reports cannot meet relationship between geophysical test methods
the needs of the engineer. To minimize this and dynamic soil properties. Therefore, the
problem, Table 6 presents minimum requirements following pages will briefly describe accept-
for the presentation of dynamic soil test able techniques for making geophysical measures
results. It may be seen that complete informa- in the field and discuss ways for obtaining
tion is required on 1) the material tested, dynamic stress-strain and strength properties
2) the specimen preparation procedure, 3) equip- of soils from these measurements.
ment characteristics, 4) test procedures,
5) specimen characteristics and 6) test results Evaluation Requirements and Geophysical
as a function of time. Investigation Procedures Required for
Dynamic Analysis.
In almost all cases, published work has
incomplete information on the physical charac- When evaluating dynamic response and
teristics of the materials tested. Similarly, stability, a number of soil property charac-
in some cases specimen preparation procedures teristics are required including gradation and
are described but more information is usually soil classification, degree of saturation,
needed. On the other hand, few papers ever density and relative density, dynamic modulus,
describe the characteristics of the test equip- damping, and strength values. Each of these
ment particularly with regard to piston fric- soil properties can be obtained from explora-
tion and the characteristics of the pore water tion, geophysical testing, or insitu testing
pressure measurement system. Further, test depending on the particular soil property
procedures describing saturation, consolidation required. This concept is summarized in
and the time for shear are often lacking. Table 7 which shows the classes of dynamic
properties required for a dynamic analysis and
Other important test details often unre- the exploration, geophysical, and insitu test
ported are the initial, consolidated and final best suited to obtain these properties. In
characteristics of specimens in terms of many cases the three test methods should be
density, unit weight, axial strain, volumetric combined to give a complete picture of the
strain, lateral strain, and water content. Only required soil properties.
with such data can a reviewer or designer
evaluate the quality of the test results. Exploratory study methods are well known
and consist of traditional laboratory and
Further, very little can be done with test field index tests. On the other hand, geo-
results unless the data is presented as a func- physical test methods and insitu test methods
tion of time or of the number of cycles. All are less well known and are not always routine-
too often data is reported for some given number ly used for determining dynamic soil stress-
of cycles which provides no information on strain and strength properties. Therefore, it
strain build up, pore pressure values or load is reasonable to discuss briefly the types of
characteristics as a function of increasing geophysical and insitu tests available and
numbers of cycles. Such incomplete data does their potential for use in obtaining dynamic
not serve the needs of the designer who must stress-strain and strength properties.
select an appropriate number of loading cycles,
or the researcher developing constitutive Geophysical Testing Procedures and Purposes
relationships where time effects must be
modeled. An excellent description of the available
geophysical test methods was presented by Woods
Better test result reporting can signifi- (1978). Figure10 shows the strain range gener-
cantly improve the state of the art in geotech- ated by the various insitu dynamic testing
nical dynamic testing. In most cases the procedures. It may be seen that geophysical
required data is collected but not presented. testing generates low shear strain values while
More forethought and care in the presentation cyclic insitu tests (CIST) generate strains
of complicated data can do much to improve the over a wide strain range.
state of the art in dynamic geotechnical stress-
strain and strength testing.
 880

A comprehensive description of available For many soils and for routine studies
test procedures for geophysical testing was this relationship is often used to define the
presented by the Corps of Engineers, (1980). low strain modulus of soils as measured in the
This reference describes in detail test laboratory. However, for some soils and for
methods for determining location and correla- special studies the modulus values obtained
tion of stratigraphy, lithology, discontinui- from the equation are checked with laboratory
ties,depth of over burden, depth to weathered testing.
rock and the quality of rock. Further, it
discusses how to obtain values of insitu shear Seed has developed a similar relationship
wave velocity from which modulus values can be which relates modulus values of sand and the
calculated. The following paragraphs describe confining pressure using the following relation-
how these shear wave velocity measurement ship
values and the resulting modulus values may be
related to other important geophysical pro- Gmax = 1000 Kmax Omo.s
perties.
where Kmax is a constant, and om is the mean
Laboratory Geophysical Testing stress as defined above. Seed and Idriss (1970)
give the following values for Kmax for a uniform
Laboratory geophysical testing provides sand at various relative densities
an opportunity to measure, under controlled
laboratory conditions, the influence of soil Kmax Sand Relative Density
properties on geophysical values of shear
wave velocity, compression wave velocity and 62 80%
damping. The advantage of laboratory testing 52 60%
is complete control over boundary conditions 42 4 5%
and test parameters. The disadvantage of
laboratory testing is that only a small volume Typical laboratory geophysical test measu-
of material is tested and that the material is rements obtained from resonant column tests
influenced by sample disturbance. plotting shear wave velocity versus the void
ratio e is shown in Figure 11 (Hardin and
The most common test procedure used in Richart, 1963). This plot shows how confining
the laboratory for determining geophysical pressure influence the shear wave Velocity.
properties is the resonant column test. Test Figure 12shows the same curve for two different
results are presented in terms of shear soils showing that there is some influence of
wave velocity versus void ratio and grain shape on dynamic material behavior. Such
shear wave velocity versus shear strain. Also plots are valuable as they show the influence
commonly presented are damping values and of material properties on geophysical measured
empirical relationships relating the test dynamic soil behavior such as shear wave
parameters together. The basic relationship velocity and compression wave velocity. A
relating laboratory geophysical measurements number of such plots and summaries exist in
to dynamic soil properties is given by the the literature (Seed and Idriss, 1970; Richart,
equation: et al., 1970).
Gmax Insitu Geophysical Testing

where Gmax is the shear modulus at low Values of shear wave velocity and the
shear strain values (on the order of l0-4% compression wave velocity can also be determi-
shear strain), Yt is the total unit weight, ned from insitu geophysical testing. The
Vs is the shear wave velocity and g is the advantages of such testing is that a relatively
acceleration of gravity. large soil mass is sampled with minimum distur-
bance. Disadvantages of field testing include
Hardin, Drnevich and their coworkers have borehole disturbance and a limited understand-
expressed the relationship between the maximum ing of the boundary conditions of the tests.
shear modulus, Gmax, and material properties
using the expression Test results most commonly and economical-
ly obtained in the field include shear wave
Gmax = 1230 OCRK (2.973 - el 2 omO .5 velocity values and compression wave velocity
1 + e values. Test results are generally presented
in terms of shear wave velocity versus depth,
where OCR is the over consolidation ratio, e and compression wave velocity versus depth.
is the void ratio, om is the mean effective Measurements of the shear wave velocity and the
stress equal to (ol + 02 + 03)/3 and K is a compression wave velocity make it possible to
constant depending on the plasticity index calculate Poisson's ratio, ~, from the relation-
(Hardin, 1978) ship _ vr2 - 2
PI K J-l- 2(vr2- 1)
0 0
20 0.18 where Vr = Vp/vs. In addition, the shear wave
40 0.30 velocity, vs, and the compression wave velocity
60 0.41 Vp, can be related to Gmax and Emax respectively
80 0.48 from the relationship
100 0.50
In this equation G and om are in psi. Gmax = Yt Vs2
g
 881

drawn to relate void ratio and shear wave velo-

Yt v 2 city values. The results of the three investi-
Ernax = g p
gations are plotted together in Figure 16 show-
ing what might be considered as reasonable plots
Young's modulus and the shear modulus can of void ratio versus shear wave velocity.
be related together in terms of Poisson's ratio
with the expression taken from the theory of However, it is instructive to compare the
elasticity results obtained from laboratory geophysical
tests with data obtained from field geophysical
Ernax = 2 (l + ]1) Grnax tests. This is shown in Figure 17 for the data
from Stokoe and Abdel-razzak (1975) by plotting
Field Testing Procedures for Dynamic Design the experimental data from the field with
and Analysis Properties values obtained using Hardin's equation. It
may be seen that this comparison gives an enti-
The most common field testing procedures rely different picture of the data. For exam-
for dynamic design and analysis problems are ple, for the dike site, i t appears that field
l) seismic refraction tests, 2) cross hole values and Hardin equation values agree well
tests, 3) uphole tests, 4) downhole tests and together. This is reasonable since the Hardin
5) cyclic insitu tests. The characteristics, equation predicts soil behavior in the labora-
advantages and disadvantages of each of these tory for short consolidation times. The dike
techniques is described in Woods (1978). site in this case was only 60 days old and i t
should be expected that the results would agree
In the United States the crosshole test is well together. On the other hand, for the much
the most commonly used method for measuring older field site, it can be seen that Hardin's
values of insitu compression wave and shear equation would predict much lower values of
wave velocity. Figure 13 shows a schematic shear wave velocity than measured in the field.
drawing of the test for both the two hole and This is to be expected. On the other hand, i t
multiple hole test method. It is recommended may be seen that the slope of the data predict-
that the multiple hole technique be used ed by Hardin's equation is completely differen'
whenever possible since it avoids the problem than a reasonable straight line drawn through
of having an accurate electronic trigger the data. This shows clearly the site specifi
required to define the time of generation of nature of insitu geophysical measurements and
the crosshole pulse. the false picture that can be obtained by try-
ing to plot data from different sites together
No matter what technique is used, it is on the same plot without knowledge of the theo
important that bore hole logging take place to retical or experimental relationship between
actually measure the horizontal distance wave velocity and physical soil parameters.
between the boreholes. It is well known that
even with good drilling, exploration holes can Another type of plot relating insitu shea
deviate significantly from the vertical. There- wave velocity to confining pressure is shown i
fore a bore hole inclinometer should be used Figure 18 for data obtained by Anderson,et al
in any hole greater than lOrn in depth to (1978). In order to obtain such a plot, i t was
accurately define the distance between the necessary to know the state of stress both in
test holes for accurate calculation of shear the horizontal and vertical directions. For
wave velocity values. their investigation a measure of the horizontal
stress was not obtained; therefore, it was
Uphole tests and downhole tests, schema- assumed that K0 was 0.5. Similar data obtained
tically represented in Figure 14, are more by Cunny and Fry (1973) is plotted in Figure 19.
commonly used overseas. This test, with only In their investigation both shear wave velocity
one borehole, is much more economical to and compression wave velocity values were
perform than the crosshole test. On the other measured which made it possible to calculate
hand interpretation of the test results be- the coefficient of earth pressure at rest, K0 ,
comes more involved and difficult for the using the expression Ko = )J / ( l - )J) •
uphole and the downhole test.
An extensive evaluation of these and
Use of Insitu Geophysical Test Results similar data has shown that accurate represen-
tation of insitu confining pressure in terms
Often, other insitu geotechnical proper- of the vertical stress and horizontal stress
ties are measured from samples taken from is necessary to accurately use the results of
geophysical test boreholes such as void insitu geophysical tests to evaluate insitu
ratio and insitu density. From these measure- geophysical properties. However, in most
ments, values of insitu shear modulus and Young published literature and in most consulting
's modulus can be calculated from the shear reports the insitu state of stress is either
wave and compression wave velocity values as not measured or is not reported. For this
described above. Further, it is possible to reason it is recommended that measurement of
evaluate a value of Poisson's ratio if both the insitu state of stress be made a part of
shear wave and compression wave velocity all geophysical investigations to better deter-
measurements are taken. mine dynamic stress-strain and strength proper-
ties of soils.
A typical plot of shear wave velocity
versus void ratio for data obtained from 3 Methods for Obtaining Insitu State of Stress
investigators is shown in Figure 15. It may
be seen that the data for a single site agree Huck,et al (1974) have made a comprehensive
well together and that a straight line can be study of the advantages, disadvantages and rela-
 882

tive accuracy of methods available for measur- ration decreases from 100% to 99%. Various
ing the insitu state of stress. They studied researchers have shown that at 99% degree of
a number of techniques for obtaining the insitu saturation, liquefaction is difficult to obtain
state of stress including geophysical testing, in the laboratory. Thus, it appears that field
the bore hole pressure meter, the bore hole geophysical tests measuring the compression
stress probe, hydraulic fracturing and wave velocity may be a powerful tool for eval-
anisotropic vane shear. The relative accuracy uating the degree of saturation of a deposit
of each of these devices is summarized in and thus, the potential for liquefaction.
Table 8.
Minimum Requirements for the Presentation of
Geophysical testing to obtain values of Insitu Geophysical Test Results
the insitu state of stress is relatively inac-
curate. The value of Poisson's ratio is ob- In reviewing geophysical testing results,
tained by dividing numbers of the same relative it quickly becomes apparent that insufficient
magnitude. Because of thi~ small test prob- information is generally presented both in the
lems can yield large errors in the value of oublished literature and in consulting reports
Poisson's ratio. Therefore, full reliance on be able to make important comparisons between
geophysical test measurements to obtain values geophysical measurements and cyclic stress-
of the insitu state of stress should not be strain and strength properties. Therefore, as
made. Geophysical test measurements should be presented previously for laboratory test
combined with other measurements to determine results, a list of minimum requirements for the
the insitu state of stress. presentation of geophysical test data is
presented in Table 10. As a minimum, it is
The borehole pressuremeter represented important that information on the soil profile,
in Figure 20 is routinely used to measure the material properties, wave velocities as a
compressibility of soils. However, few re- function of depth, and insitu confining pres-
searchers suggest that it gives accurate sure be presented in any summary of insitu
values of the insitu state of stress because geophysical test results. With such data a
of borehole disturbance involved with the much more comprehensive picture of the charac-
insertion of the device into the ground. Bore- teristics of a deposit can be prepared and
hole disturbance is minimized with a self information useful in understainding the rela-
boring pressure meter (Fig. 21). However, tionship between geophysical test results and
again few people working with the device claim insitu soil behavior will be available.
that the device can give accurate values of
the insitu state of stress. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

On the other hand, the boreholes stress 1. This state of the art paper describes
probe seems to be a reasonably accurate techni- better techniques for the use of both labora-
que for measuring the insitu state of stress. tory and field test methods to predict the
Marchetti (1980) has shown how the borehole cyclic stress-strain and strength properties
stress probe can be used to measure the of soils. A significant amount of information
horizontal state of stress in various classes is obtained both in laboratory and field inves-
of soils. The use of such a probe would add tigations. However, in only a few cases is this
little to the cost of a comprehensive geo- data described in the literature or in consult-
physical field exploration program and would ing reports with sufficient accuracy and scope
provide valuable information useful for to make the data useful for design and analysis.
increasing the value of the program.
2. There are two classes of tests used to
Hydraulic fracturing is another technique measure the dynamic stress-strain and strength
for measuring the insitu state of stress. It properties of soils. These include l) soil
is favored by some practitioners and disfavored behavior for design and analysis problems and
by others. Similarly, the anisotropic vane 2) soil properties for the development of cons-
shear test has been used to evaluate the insitu titutive relationships. The requirements for
state of stress in soft clay. However, it has each class of investigation are quite different
shown few favorable results. and require knowledge of the use to which the
data is to be made.
The applicability of various field methods
for measuring K0 is summarized in Table 9 . As 3. For design and analysis problems the
a first approximation it may serve as a guide following is a relative ranking of the most
for selecting a technique for measuring the useful laboratory test procedures based on
insitu state of stress. equipment availability and ease of testing:

Degree of Saturation la. Resonant column test (Small strain)

lb. Cyclic triaxial test (Large strain)
The degree of saturation appears to be an 2. Cyclic simple shear test
important parameter useful in evaluating the 3. Torsional shear test
potential for liquefaction of a site. Labora-
tory tests have clearly shown that soils which However, the following test details must
are not saturated show great resistance to be closely scrutinized to insure that test
liquefaction (Chaney, 1978). Allen, et al results are meaningful:
(1980) have clearly shown the relationship
between compression wave velocity and degree l. Specimen preparation (reconstitu-
of saturation. Their data, summarized in ted specimen)
Figure 22 shows that compression wave velocity 2. Sample disturbance (undisturbed
decreases significantly as the degree of satu- sample)
 MJ

3. Specimen dimensions and density 1. Standard penetration test

4. Equipment friction 2. Cone penetration test
5. Pore pressure measurements 3. Crosshole test
6. Shape of the force or deformation 4. Uphole test
loading trace 5. Downhole test
7. Time effects 6. Refraction survey
7. Cyclic insitu test
4. For constitutive relationships, the
following is the relative ranking of the most 9. Additional useful information can be
common laboratory test procedures based on obtained from existing field geophysical test
the potential for obtaining the maximum amount methods. On a site specific basis shear wave
of information on soil behavior and the ease and compression wave velocity data may help to
of testing: extend the amount of dynamic insitu soil beha-
vior data obtained from a routine geophysical
1. Triaxial shear test testing program.
2. Torsional shear test (hollow
samples) 10. In all types of geophysical testing,
3. Simple shear test more complete documentation of the tests must
4. Cubical shear test be presented in both published papers and in
consulting reports. Minimum requirements
Other useful tests, but with more limited include a detailed description of
access, include the centrifuge test and the
shaking table test . 1. The soil profile
2. Material index properties
In addition of all the important test 3. Wave velocities as a function
details described in 3 above, the following of depth
features of the test must be understood to be 4. Insitu confining pressure (both
able to use the data in developing meaningful vertical and horizontal)
constitutive relationships:

1. Boundary conditions Acknowledgements:

2. State of stress within the
specimen The help of Mr. Andrew Blystra, graduate
3. Equipment compliance student in the Department of Materials Enginee~
4. Membrane penetration effects ing,is gratefully acknowledged for his assis-
tance in investigating the relationship between
5. In all types of testing, more complete geophysical and geotechnical soil properties.
documentation of the test must be presented in The paper was typed by Ms. Ariani Brenner and
both published papers and in consulting report& drafting assistance was given by Mr. Robert
Minimum requirements include a detailed des- Sanchez and Ms. Mescatt Assian.
cription of:

1. The material tested

2. Specimen preparation procedures
3. Test equipment characteristics
4. Test procedures
5. Specimen characteristics (before
consolidation, after consolida-
tion and after testing)
6. Test results as a function of
time

6. All test data is generally lacking in

information on material deformation and the
behavior of the specimen as a function of the
number of cycles of loading. These defficien-
cies can be easily overcome by additional
instrumentation and by more complete plotting
of the measured test data.

7. More extensive use of field test pro-

cedures should be made to obtain dynamic stress-
strain and strength properties of soils. At
present, insitu testing is probably the most
useful technique for obtaining soil properties
for design and analysis problems even though
there is lack of control over test variables
and test boundary conditions.

8. The following is the relative ranking

of the most common field testing procedures
based on equipment availability, ease of test-
ing, and the state of the art in test inter-
pretation:
REFERENCES Drnevich, V.P., (1978), "Rcsonc~nt Column Test-
ing Problems and Soluti.ons," Dynamic Geotech-
Allen, N.F., Richart, F.E., Jr., Woods, R.D., nical Testing, ASTM, STP 654, American
(1980), "Fluid Wave Propagation in Saturated Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 384-
and nearly Saturated Sands," Journal of the 398.
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
March. Drnevich, V.P., Hardin, B.O., and Shippy, D.J.,
(1978), "Modulus and Damping of Soils by the
Anderson, D.G., Espana, C., and HcLamore, V.R., Resonant Col wnn Method," Dynamic Geotechnical
(1978), "Estimating in Situ Shear Moduli at Testing, ASTM, STP G54, American Society for
Competent Sites," Proceedings of the ASCE Testing and Materials, pp. 66-90.
Geotechnical Engineering Division Specialty
Conference, Earthquake Engineering and Soil Ferri to, J .M., Forrest, J .B., and Wu, G., (1979),
Dynamics, Pasadena, California, Vol. l, "A Compilation of Cyclic Triaxial Liquefac-
June 19-21, pp. 181-197. tion Test Data," Geotechnical Testing Journal
Vol. 2., No. 2, June, pp. 106-113.
Anderson, D.G., and Stokoe, K.H., II, (1978),
"Shear Modulus: A Time-Dependent Soil Frydman, S., Zertlin, I.G., and Alpan, I., (1973),
Property," Dynamic Geotechnical Testing, "The Membrane Effect in Triaxial Testing of
ASTM, STP 654, American Society for Testing Glanular Soils," Journal of Testing and
and Materials. Evaluation, Vol. I., No. l, pp. 37-41.

Anderson, D.G., and Woods, R.D., (1975), "Com- Gerrard, C.M., and Wardle, L., (1971), "The
parison of Field and Laboratory Shear Predicted Effect of Soil Samplinq Disturbance
Moduli," Proceedings of the In Situ Measure- on the Stress-Strains Developed During Tri-
ment of Soil Properties, ASCE, June l-4, axial Testing," Proceedinqs specialty Session
Raleigh N.C., Vol. l, pp. 69-92. on Quality in Soil Sampling, 4th Asian Con-
ference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Benerjee, N.G., Seed, H.B., and Chan, C.K., Engineerinq, pp. 40-48.
1979), "Cyclic Behavior of Dense Coarse
Grained Materials in Relation to The Seismic Hardin, B.O., (1978), "The >Jature of Stress-
Stability of Dams," Report No. UCB/EERC 79/ Strain Behavior for Soils," Proceedings,
13, Earthquake Engineering Research Institu- Conference on Earthquake Engineering and
te, University of California, Berkeley, Soil Dynamics, ASCE, Pasadena, California,
June, 252 pp. Vol. l, pp. 3-90.

Brems, B.B., (1980) "Soil Sampling in Europe: Hardin, B.O., and Drnevich, V.P., (1972), "Shear
State-of-the-Art," Journal of the Geotech- Modulus and Damping in Soil: Measurement
nical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, and Parameter Effects," Journal of the Soil
No. GTl, January, pp. 65-98. Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE,
Vol. 98, No. SM6, June, pp. 603-624.
Chaney, R.C., (1978), "Saturation Effects on
the Cyclic Strength of Sands," Proceedings Hardin, B.O., and Drnevich, V.P., (1972), "Shear
of the Specialty Conference on Earthquake Modulus and Damping in Soil: Design Equations
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE, Vol. l, and Curves," Journal of the Soil Mechanics
Pasadena, California, pp. 342-358. and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No.
SM7, July, pp. 667-692.
Conlon, R.J., and Isaacs, R.M.F., (1970),
"Effect of Sampling and Testing Techniques Hardin, B.O., and Richart, F.F., Jr., (1963),
on the Shear Strength of a Glacial-Lacus- "Elastic Wave Velocities in Granular Soils,"
trine Clay from Welland, Ontario," ASTM Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Symposium on Sampling of Soil and Rock, Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 89, No. SMl,
STP 483, American Society for Testing and February, pp. 33-65.
Materials, Toronto, Canada, June 26, pp.
10-29. Horn, H.M., (1979), "North American Experience
in Sampling and Laboratory Dynamic Testing,"
Corps of Engineers, (1979), "Geophysical Explo- Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2,
ration,"EM 1110-l-802, Engineer Manual, June , pp . 8 4-9 7 .
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers,
Office of the Chief of Engineers, May. Huck, P.J., Pincus, H.J., Singh, M.M., and Chugh,
Y. P., ( 19 74) , "Determination of the In-Situ
Corps of Engineers, (1980), "Laboratory Soils State of Stress in Soil Masses," Report No.
Testing," Engineer Manual EM 1110-2-1906, FHWA-RD-74-68, Federal Highway Administration,
Reprint Volume with Change I, Headquarters, Washington, D.C., September, 316 pp.
Department of the Army, Office of the Chief
of Engineers, May l. Kiekbusch, M., and Schuppener, B., (1977),
"Membrane Penetration and Its Effects on Pore
Dobry, R., and Athanasiou-Grivas, (1978), Pressures," Journal of the Geotechnical Engi-
"Stress-Strain Relation for Soils Under neering Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. GT 11,
Earthquake Loading," Report No. 78-2, Depar~ pp. 1267-1279.
ment of Civil Engineering, Rensselear Poly-
technic Institute, Troy, N.Y., July, 77 pp. Krinitzsky, E.L., (1970), Radiography in the
Earth Sciences, and Soil Mechanics, Plenum
Press, New York, 163 pp.
 885

Ladd, C., and Foott, R., (1974), "New Design Sangrey, D.A., Pollard, W.S., and Egan, J.A.,
Procedure for Stability of Soft Clays," (1978), "Errors Associated with Rate of
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Undrained Cyclic Testing of Clay Soils,"
Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. GT7, July, Dynamic Geotechnical Testing, ASTM, STP 654,
pp. 76 3-786. American Society for Testing and Materials,
pp. 280-294.
Lee, K.L., (1975), "Influence of End Constraint
on Undrained Triaxial Strength of Sand," Seed, H.B., (1979), "Soil Liquefaction and
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg Cyclic Mobility Evaluation for Level Ground
During Earthquakes," Journal of the Geo-
tec~nical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.
Lysmer, J., (1978), "Analytical Procedures in 105, No. GT 2, February, pp. 201-255.
Soil Dynamics," Proceedings, Conference on
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Seed, H.B., Arango, I., and Chan, C.K., (1975),
ASCE, Pasadena, Vol. III, pp. 1267-1316. "Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction Potential
During Earthquakes," Report No. EERC 75-28,
Marchetti, S., (1980), "In Situ Tests by Flat Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
Dilatometer," Journal of the Geotechnical University of California, Berkeley, May.
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 106,
No. GT3, March, pp. 299-321. Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., (1970), "Soil
Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Res-
Marcuson, W.F., and Franklin, A. G., (1979), ponse Analysis," Report No. EERC 70-10,
"State of the Art of Undisturbed Sampling Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
of Cohesionless Soils," Proceeding of the University of California, Berkeley.
International Symposium of Soil Sampling,
Singapore, pp. 57-72. Silver, M.L., (1976), "Laboratory Triaxial
Testing Procedures to Determine the Cyclic
Martin, R.M., Finn, W.D.L., and Seed, H.B., Strength of Soils," Report NUREG-31, U.S.
(1978), "Effects of System Compliance in Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
Liquefaction Tests," Journal of the Geo- D.C.
technical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.
104, No. GT4, April, pp. 463-479. Silver, M.L., and Park, T.K., (1976), "Lique-
faction Potential Evaluated from Cyclic
!-iori, H., (1978), "Japanese Experience in Soil Strain Controlled Properties Tests on Sands,"
Sampling and Its Influence on Dynamic Labo- Soils and Foundations, Japanese Society of
ratory Testing," Preprint No. 3440, ASCE Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Convention, Chicago, pp. 87-112. Vol. 16, No. 3, September, pp. 51-65.

Newland, P.L., and Allely, B.H., (1959), "Volu- Silver, M.L., and Seed, H.B., (1971), "Defor-
me Changes During Undrained Triaxial Tests mation Characteristics of Sand Under Cyclic
on Saturated Diletant Granular Materials," Loading," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnique, Vol. 9, pp. 174-182. Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM8,
August, pp. 1081-1098.
Raju, V.S., and Sadaswan, S.K., (1974), "Mem-
brane Penetration in Triaxial Tests on Silver, M.L., and others, (1976), "Cyclic Tri-
Sands," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineer- axial Strength of Standard Test Sand,"
ing Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. GT 10, Journal of t~e Geotechnical Engineering
pp. 482-489. Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. GT5, Hay,
pp . 511- 52 3 .
Raju, V.S., and Venkataramana, (1980), "Undrain-
ed Triaxial Tests to Assess Liquefaction Stokoe, K.H., II, and Abdel-razzak, K.G., (197~,
Potential of Sands - Effect of Membrane Pene- "Shear Moduli of Two Compacted Fills,"
tration," Proceedings, International Sympo- Proceedings of the Conference on In Situ
sium on Soils Under Cyclic and Transient Measurement of Soil Properties, ASCE, June
Loading, Swansea, pp. 483-494. l-4, Raleigh, N.C., Vol. l, pp. 422-449.

Richart, F.E., Jr., Hall, J.R., Jr., and Woods, Woods, R.D., (1978), "Measurement of Dynamic
R.D., (1970), Vibrations of Soils and Foun- Soil Properties," Proceedings, Conference on
dations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics,
N.J., 414 pp. Pasadena, ASCE, Vol. I, pp. 91-178.

Roscoe, K.H., Schofield, A.N., and Thurairajah, Yoshimi, Y., Richart, F.E., Jr., Prakash, s.,
A., (1963), "An Evaluation of Test Data for Barkan, D.O., and Ilyicher, V.A., (1977),
Selecting a Yield Criterion for Soils," "Soil Dynamics and Its Application to Foun-
Laboratory Shear Testing of Soils, ASTM, dation Engineering," State-of-the-Art Repor~
STP 361, pp. lll-128. Ninth International Conference on Soil Me-
chanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo,
Saada, A.S., Townsend, F.H., and Gilbert, P.A., Vol. 2, pp. 605-650.
(1980), "Strength Laboratory Testing of Soils
- A State of the Art," ASTM Symposium on the
Shear Strength of Soils, Chicago, June.
 886

TABLE l

Recent State of The Art Reports Relating

to The Dynamic Behavior of Soil

Suhject Content an<l C0nclu~ions No. of References

Citations

Soil Dynamics Discussion nf (ly11~n,ic stress-strain 278 Ynshimi et a1 (1977)

r~lat.innships; liqupfact ion; seismic
response of soil do?poslts, dams ond
struct\Ircs; dynamics of bases ar1d
found<Jtions; <,nd soil structure
internet ion.

Dynnmic Field and Summary of dynrtmic fiE2ld nnd lnhor<ttory 171 Hoods ( 19 7 8)
J,Ahoratory Test- test mC'thods. Discussion of t~st
ing Procedures procPdurc>s.

Analytical Summary nf srlil <1ynamic ililalysis (or 162 Lysmer (1970)

Procedures in foundation vihrntions, rile vihrntions,
Soil Dynamics seismic sit~ response problem~ nr1d
soil structures internction.

Stress-~train Discussion of clnst_ic and nlastir 79 Hardin (1978)

Rei1Av5or of Soils strnins in sr>i ln under dynamic lortd inq

Stress-Strain Summary of <tnalytical models developed 169 Dobry and 1\thannsiou-

Behavior of Soils for earthquake response anrtlysis, Grivas (1978)
Under Dynamic stress-strain behavior and non-li110ar
Loading models for carthounkP: loadinq _

Effect of Discussion of field sampling m~thod:. 21 Mori (1978)

Sampling on (block samol~s. l~rge dirtmPter samplr~ 17~ Broms ( 19 80)
Dynamic Soil sample disi:urhn:ncf? <mr1 other f.Flctors on A1 Horn (l q 79)
Deh<tvior mea.sured laboratory cyclic strPnqth
values. Experience from Europr-, J:-.pon
and thr United State~.

Undisturbed High quality 'tmdisturbPfl samnlos can he J4 Marcusnn and Franklin

Sampling of obtained usjnq il fixPd pislon r;,lrnplPr ( 1979)
Cohcsionless Soils and drilling mud. HowevPr, th0 snmplin<J
process loosens ,]cnsP sands Clnd d0n~ifics
loose s~"lnds.

Geophysical Provi.<l0s quidilnrP <1ncl inform,lti.on 121 Corps of Enqi.no~rs

Ex!Jlora t ion conce rn.i n<J the u~p of PXP lor,l t ion ( 19 79)
georhysic<ll methods and Cf1tlipmf~nt
in g0ologicnl and founrl.ation
j nvps t.i qo t ions.

Static Labora- Summrtry of t€'st 00vices and an 1'>9 Sanda, Townsand and
tory Testing evalu~tinn of stat~ of strP~s Gi1b<'rt, (1980)
Procedures impos0d on spr>cimens.
Discussion of factors (Ptld plattrn
rouqhness, membrane P"nPtration, Pte.)
thnt. inflnPnC0 test- rPsnlts.

1\. NON LINEAR BEHAVIOR

STRESS

B.
+
(YCLE DEPENDENT BEHAVIOR

I
1
LOH CYC... ES
FI••OI'Iant

P1.1IM
Colul'l'l.ft (Solid ·~'••)

met~o.!!!_

T y1>1ca1 -1011 C~aroc;tonctlco

C_}'ctlc
CycUc

s1mpie
TriGII04

•"•or

--~~~~~~HIGH CYCLES Prot~•ly d•el;n•d Stra"q QI'Ot~~d

Jt!IGCIIIIM fO<oJIUfGtlCift •N~l.ll"'Cjj fro"'
•ort,.Ciuolle

DRY SATURATED

Fig. l Dynamic Non Linear, Hysteretic, Strain Fig. 2 Common Laboratory Testing Procedures
Dependent Soil Behavior. Used to Evaluate The Dynamic Properties of
Soils.
 887

TABLE 2

RELATIVE QUALITY OF LABORATORY TECHNIQUES FOR

MEASURING DYNAMIC SOIL PROPERTIES

Relative Quality of Test Results

Shear Young's Material Effect of No. Atten-

Modulus Modulus Damping of Cycles uation
Resonant
Column Good Good Good Good

with
adaptation Fair
Ultrasonic
Pulse Fair Fair Poor

Cyclic
Triaxial Good Good Good

Cyclic
Simple
Shear Good Good Good
Cyclic
Torsional
Shear Good Good Good

Shake
Table Fair Good

TABLE 3

PARAMETERS MEASURED IN DYNAMIC OR CYCLIC LABORATORY TESTS

HE SONANT CYCLIC CYcu c ToRSIONAL

(QLU!1N. lR!AXlAL S_l11PLE. __Sl!EAR -~SI:iEAR_

1. LoAD RESONANT AXIAL !IORIZONTAL TORQUE

fREQUENCY FoRcE FoRcE

2. DEFORMATION

- AxiAL VERTICAL VERTICAL VERTICAL VERT! CAL

DISPLACEMENT DISPLACEMENT DISPLACEMENT DISPLACEMENT

- SHEAR AccELERATION NoT IJoR I ZONTAL RoTATION

MEASURED DISPLACEMENT

- LATERAL NoT UsuALLY NoT UsuALLY OFTEN NoT UsuALLY

MEASURED MEASURED CONTROLLED MEASURED

- VoLUMETRIC NoNE FOR UNDRAINED TESTS,

VOLUME OF FLUID MOVING INTO OR OUT OF THE SAMPLE FOR DRAINED TESTS,

3. PORE WATER NoT UsuALLY MEASURED MEASURED MEASURED

PRESSURE MEASURED AT BouNDARY AT BouNDARY AT BouNDARY
 S88

TABLE 4

EFFECT OF MEMBRANE PENETRATION ON THE

CYCLIC STRENGTH OF SAND

Procedure Used to ~sscss Effpr.t n0sul ts Re fercncf'

of Membrane Penetration
(Jndcr isotropic loading, memhranc ProvidPd quantitative Pvalun- Newland a~d Allely
effect should be the differencP tion of effpc~t of n1pn1hr~r1e (1959)
bet\.,..een 3 times mei'\sured axial and pen~tration.
volumetric strain.

Same as above. Also fabricated T\ volumE> charqc vnluP- withnut Rasco£'!, et nl. {lQ63)
specimens with i11ternal rod3 to membrane pen0tri'\tion Wi'\~
obtain effect of membrane rll'?'terminr:d
penetrations.

Imnroved the interJ1retatio11 of the Better evaluation of the effect naju and Sadasivan
test results presented by noscoe. of membrane tlenetration. ( 1974)

Tests on gli'\SS spheres of varying Relationship hctweP.n ncnetra- Frydman, ct al (1973)

diameter. tiorl and Il50 of th~ san~.

Used thin layer of liquid rubber Confirmed reli'\t.ionshin of Kiekt)usch and Schttnpcner
to reduce membrane penetration. Frydman et al. Hiqhe~ pore ( 19 77)
~ressures recorded from static
undrained triaxial compression
tests usinq mo(1i fird mr>mbri'\nPs.

Theoretical analysis of errors Significant errors in mr>asurinq Martin, Finn and Se~d

arrising from volumetric compli- pore pressure arr> ross ible. ( 1978)
ance in cyclic liquefaction Suggr>st cnnstant volume si~ple
tests on saturated sands. shear licftlefactiOJl tests for
accurately assessinq cff~cts of
memhrane compliance.

Study of membrane penetration For wrll graded rrravel, ntembrane Bonerj0~, Seed and Chan
effects on large (3050 mm) diame- compliance effects were not lar0e (1979)
ter triaxial specimens usinq ana resultc,J in ~ 10~ cnrrectio11
special girth gages. in stress values to rr>ach 10~%
pore pr~ssurc ratio.

Used Polyethlene strips and Membrane pr>nc tration causes Raju and Vertknt~ramnna
polyurethane coating to undcrostintaLion of pore pressures (1980)
reduce membrane penetrat_ ion. in contrnctive soils ond ovC>r-
estimation in dilative soils.

Tl\BLE 5

COMPARISON OF LIQUAFACTION RESISTANCE CHARACTERISTICS

OF UNDISTURBED RECONSTITUTED S&~PLES

OF COHESIONLESS SOILS (FROM BENERGEE, ET.AL., 1979)

RATIO Of
UNDISTURBED
FIRM PROJECT TO R£1-()LOEO SOIL TYPE H(T'HOO OF RECONSTITUTING
STRENGTHl

Woodlol~rd-Clydt> South Texts 1.00 silty fint> sand, o50 • 0.07 rnoht tamping, 3/4. dia
(Oakland. Ca.) to 0.27 rrrn tarnpin'il foot

Woodwnd-Clydt> 1.15 wt>ll-gr.tdrod coarH to fine I!Wlist tsmpinq, )/4" dh

(Orange, Ca.) sand, 15\ - •200 ~lt>vt> tampin'il foot

U.C. Berkt>hy BlueJoillls l.lS un1f01'111 flnt> ~11 ty sar>d, rnoht tamplnq, 1.4" dla.
Texas o50 • o 4,..,, S't to 1St ta,..,plnq foot
IZOO slt>ve

Dames & Moore A llens Cret>k 1.20 fine silty. cl<'lyey s<'Jnd. moist tall"lpinq, 1" dla.
(S1H1 fr.tn .• (4 (t"lt>at sink are.t) o50 • o 03 to 1 6 1m'. ot tamplnq root
to 40\ - •200 Slt>Vf'

Oamt>\ ~ "'"aort> Aliens (ret>k 1.27 fl nt> s 11 ty. clayey ~a"d. I!WJ\st tamping, 1" dla
{S11n Fran.,(<'!) (plant area) o50 • o OJ to 1 6 ""'· ot tamplnq foot
to 40\ • 1200 s lt>ve

(onvrorst>·Davl\ l . .CS clayt>y sand, ll 26, P] moist tamplnq, lrr dla

il, 44\ - 1200 slt>vt> tamplnq foot

law Enqlneerlng Florida sand l.JO dry vt>rtlcal vlbrat Ions.

and Test 1 nq frequency • 120 c.p. s.

.... [. s rt. Peck Oa111 1.155 to 1 80 untfot"ll'l fine s!lty sand dry roddlru~ {3/8" dh .
(foundation) foot), followed by stHic
compactlo.r~

.... (. s. Ft. Peck Dam 1. 70 to 2.00 unlfOI"'II fint> to ~t~edilJ'" dry roddir19 0/8"" dh.
(shel1) und foot), followe-d by static
compaction

1
P.at!o of cyclic stress ratios required to caus~ 11qut>fact1on 1n ten cycles
for undisturbed and rel'lf)lded Ulllples.
 889

COMPLETElY
UNDISTURBED SOIL

....z
20
~ /

II~,,-
w
...
.....

....
3
..... \02<blh
i5 .. 0 • 137".'4

< I I\._ RECONS;ITUTEO

0 I TEST SPECIMEN
:r
.... I
"a:~ \0
I UNDISTURBED TEST
t; SPECIMEN
a: )'d- 102.9 lb/ftl

...
< o,-sn
~
0
w
z
<
a:
---
0
z 10 50 100
:::l
COMPLETELY
N. CYClES
REMOULDED SOl L

DEGREE OF DISTURBANCE
INCREASING Fig. 4 Effect of Number of Cycles on Specimen
Deformation in Cyclic Triaxial Strength Tests
(from Horn, 1979).

Fig. 3 Influence of Sample Disturbance on The Shear

Strength Properties of Soils (from Horn, 1979).

Homogeneous Radial Variation Vertical Variation

of Modulus of Modulus
!.OS"' <« 0·1~ 0-99
"' l~l

c
G
,_M~.!,_F_!QO EXp
c~~
'" ,... 1·05 , . "''
,.. -
4 t-

3
- ._Ec!.f.D..f:.tEl
~C(l
(f"~Y[
~ _ _!!N- WEEKs .f"' l; -

1'2"
""' "'" O·IIS HlO
'"' ~z~~~WE~~~ ~

3
1~£
~:::---a._
<<)0

10 g
'" , . ,... ,.,
;; 1

~
- 0
A
1'
SYMBOL IT
OAY
1 WEEK
--
- - - .::::
."'"'
w
'"' "" O ~ 10 IEH ---·_: r
~

Jo-3 Jo-2 10 -1 °
"' "' '"
, .. •II
SHEARING STRAIN (I)

'" "'

Fig. 5 Stress Distribution in Axially Fig. 6 Effect of Time on Shear Modulus Versus
Loaded Soil Samples (from Gerrard Wardle, Shear Strain Relationships For Soils (from
1971). Anderson and Stokoe, 1978).
 890

r;m~ a::t>r Otpo~dion - ttcrs

VERTICAL STRESS /
1----.-------,
10 100 1000
/jE
o L oborotor)' lnt dolo - Mon1Ptt:y No 0 Sond
ID
/'!J.
Valdez sill {time oflrr lood opplirotion}
Hyor1roulic 1ond ftll from lower Son F~rnondo Oom
t<'>a-1 /)',/
, C016'RESSION

0
v
Soulh Te•os sond
son Moii"O sand
/ /
/
:
I

0 Hyd•oulic sond fill rrom Upppr Son~f'rnando Oom CC = ct =GIVEN

// \
-<.
- tl! - o I ~~~~~------
VERTIC"l STR"IN
''
(.. & .6Q;"CAN BE MEASUOEO

FROM TRIAXIAL TEST. I/;

1
I I
I
/

THEN FROM THEORY OF ELASTICITY TENSION

~~----
I
I
E = "'7£.
--
0 0
G=E/211

r~c,ntJ.(>
tJ.(>

O,L,-----L-----,~'c-----:,"'02.----~---~--~}, -~---Jo6 (e) Tr!utal Tut Conditions (b) Eqvtvalent

Properttes
Hy~tfrf'tit Strtu-Str•ln

li"'t Cfl('r 0f'(IOSiiiOI'I- dO)'S

Fig. 8 Definition of Triaxial Test Conditions

Fig. 7 Influence of Period of Sustained and Equivalent Linear Hysteretic Stress Strain
Pressure on Stress Ratio Causing 100% Pore Properties Calculated From Cyclic Triaxial
Pressure Response in Cyclic Triaxial Strength
Tests (from Seed, 1979). Properties Tests.

TABLE 6

MINUl.UM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRESENTATION

OF DYNAMIC SOIL TEST RESULTS
1. Material Tested

Classification
Grain Size (How was fine fraction measured)
Geologic Origin
Atterberg Limits (Cohesive soils)
Limiting Densities (Cohesionless soils)
2. Specimen Preparation
Undisturbed Sampling procedure (Borehole or block sample)
Sample trimming
Reconstituted Sample conditioning
Specimen preparation procedure
Molding water content
3. Equipment Characteristics
Piston Friction
Membrane Characteristics
Pore Pressure Measurement System
Platten Characteristics

4. Test Procedures
Saturation
Consolidation
Shear (Time)

5. Specimen Characteristics
Initial Dry Weight, Height and Volume
Density or Unit Weight*
Axial Strain*
Volumetric Strain*
Lateral Strain (If measured)*
Water Content*
*(Before consolidation, after consolidation and after testing).

6. Test Results as a Function of Time

Load
Deformation (Including lateral and volumetric deformations)
Pore Pressure
 891

SOUA.BE WAy~ SUit:. WA YE

T-
D
so,., 2 4f>
~ TO L
D t-£~24P
J

VIBRATORY

.
PLATE BEARING STATIC ~
10'1. uouulf I 0'1. DOUBlE
!PLATE BEARING

····I~~l\Jf
A.Mt>liJUUf S
z
0
1-sM-EQ --1
:--1
10-~ to-4 IQ-1 10
Sheorinq Slroin- y, percent

Fig. 10 Common Field Testing Procedures Used to

Fig. 9 Characteristics of Acceptable and Evaluate The Dynamic Properties of Soils.
Unacceptable Wave Forms Generated In The
Cyclic Triaxial Strength Test (from Silver,
1976) •

TABLE 7

EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS AND INVESTIGATION

PROCEDURES REQUIRED FOR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

Dynamic Stability and

Potential for Liquefaction

Gradation and Soil Classification E. Laboratory Testing

G. Crosshole and Uohole/Downhole
Surveys; ReflectLon (3)

Degree of Saturation E. Labo~atorv Testing

G. Lateral R~sist1vity
Density and E. Laboratory Testing
Relative Density G. Crosshole and Vohole/9ownhole
Surveys; Reflec~i0n (3)
I. Standard Penetrat1Qn Test
Dynamic Modulus Values E. Laboratory Test1ng
G. Crosshole and Uphole/Downhole
Surveys; Reflection
I. Standard Penet=ation Test
Damping Values E. Laboratory Testi~g
G. Insitu Impulse
Dynamic Strength Values E. Laboratory Testing
G. (2)
I. Standard Penetration 7est

(1) The letter ''E'' represents conventional foundatlon

explor~tion and laboratory testing procedures. T~e
letter "G" represents geophys1cal methods. The
letter ''I" represents conventional insitu procedures.
(2) ~o procedure ava>lable.

(3) Data obtained by these procedures may be bused on

correlations with such factors as P-Wave velocities,
$-Wave velocities, shear modulut, Young's modulus,
and Poisson's ratio.
 892

N
c: 50,000
;.:: Pressure ...
Void
Max.
Ratio
Min. ..,,e_
·- No20-No.30
o- No. 80 -No. 140
.. -r4.8% No. 20- No. 30
0.71
0.89
0.66
0.495
0.54
0.32
:;
"0

:::;
~
::>

0 (b)
25.2% No. 80 - No.l40
A- No.20-Noi40,Well Graded 0.76 0.42 ~
1300 v, =( 170-78.2el if0 25 ° .s:
(/)

u
....:: 0.9 1.1 1.3
6o Void Ratio e
00
>- 10 --Round Groins-Ottowo Sand
..-,,~---Angular Groins- Crushed Quartz
~ "
·;:;
0
;;
~ Amplitude= 10- 3 Rod ion (p. top.)
" ..... ..........
>
..
>
0
>-

:i-
.......... '
............ o-0~6
.......... ..._ooo'
~ ·;:;

..;;
.c
~
0

.,> ...............
...... _- ...... Joo. . . . . . . !:._,,,?
..................
......
(/)
0 ............. '-.E..!_.b,,,<
~ ..........<'ooo - .....
500 .,0
.s:
(/)
--
-
-- --- ____
.
...................tb/fl?...................

'Ooo ,b/fl<.......... '

........ ......

4000.35 0.45 0.55 0.75

------ -so.....o_lb/fr~
-----
Void Rotio, e
500

0.3 0.4
<ol

400.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-f~~~~
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
-----
Void Ratto e

Fig. 11 Variation of Shear \'lave Velocity

with Void Ratio for Various Confining Fig. 12 Variation of Shear Wave Velocity and
Pressures, Grain Sizes, and Gradations Shear Modulus with Void Ratio and
in Dry Ottawa Sand (from Hardin and Confining Pressure for Dry Round and
Richart, 1963). Angular Grained Sands (from Hardin
and Richart, 1963).

~
i ~
\ I .. PU~S( "00

· - , = = = = . 1 = ,
~·---'

~·-___,~-··£;·
f:=ci:l ...-~~~
~·:r'===I:.:::~~~:C::.::·"-'":___~
·· • ::LI-
~~'---

::~"'-~·~II
;' I.,.,,.~rr,····
Fig. 13 Seismic Crosshole Survey Techniques Using 'c-•u.,., ~ ·I
Two Borehole and Multiple Borehole Methods (from , . _.... _ : I

Woods, 1978). :!~: !

,.~:

Fig. 14 Seismic Uphole and Seismic

Downhole Survey Techniques (from Woods,
1978}.
 893

SIIEA.n WII.VE VElOCITY .Vs. ~M I Sec!

100 700 ::too <OO 500

~TOKO( ANI) 1\IJDFL-liJ\ll_AI< (IHT'i)

15

0 1.0 ---

<
«
0
0 05
>

400 600 ROO 1000 1200 1.4 00 1000 I BOO

200

SHEAR WII.VE VELOCITY ,Vs, (Fll Sec}

ANOFn~ON fi.ND WOODS (197'll

AU. ~llFS

15

<:',_ 1.0

<
"'
0
0 05
>

SHE fl.n WII.VE VELOCITY .v ~· OA I SllC}

100 ,00 :JOO <oo 500

I\NI1111~0N r r. AI. (ti)7B)

SIT[
'
()

Sllf n
'-' 1\
I) SIT[' c
v SITE
"
,_<:' 1.0

<
0: n 0
n
A
't-~ "w
0 0 0 'l-J'-'
05 - v
0
>

200 400 ROO BOO 1000 1200 1.4 00 1600 1BOO

SHE/\R WII.VE VELOCITY ,Vs. (F!I Sec)

Fig. 15 Void Ratio Versus Shear Wave Velocity

Values Measured From Geophysical Crosshole
Techniques by various Investigators.
~liE An WA.VE VELOCITY ,V<J. i~ I St>r.l
SHEAR W/\VF_ VELOCITY ,Vfl, tM I Soc)
100 700 JOO •oo 500
100 200 JOO •oo !JOO

1.5 -
15

l\NOEnSON 'NO
0 1.0 -
0
r-
- s-
1.0

<
0: .f\NDF:IlSON [ l M ll'llnl
0

<:'
0 0.5 STOKOE 'NO ----- ~-----
0
>
0.'5

tt975)

>OO •oo eoo 800 1000

'" 00
1600 uoo
200 '00 BOO BOO 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
SIIEAn WAVE VELOCITY .v •• ~Fit S•cl
SHEAR W!\VE VELOCITY .Ya. (FII Sec)

Fig. 16 Summary of Void Ratio Versus Shear Wave Fig. 17 Comparison of Void Ratio Versus Shear
Velocity Values Measured From Geophysical Cross- Wave Velocity Values Measured From Geophysical
hole Methods. Crosshole Methods and Calculated From Hardin's
Equation.
 894

CONrJNINO PnE SSUnE

2
CONFININO PRESSURE . Om. IKNtm J

600 1.000 600

;;
;; CUNNY /\NO rny I I!H:ll .::
.:: ANDlltSON El AL (t9701
000
~
K 0~ 0.5 IASSUMEUI
600
- ~ 1.500!-------~ ---------f---------
>
•oo
>
D. SM-SG V
400
>-
.0
>-

...>- G,SM,SC,Ml.SP,CL-C~ 0
~
0
0 JOO J
0
U. SP-SM, GP D.
JOO
w
"'>
SITE A.Cl.,SP-SM.ML.Cif 0
> w
200 >
w
"'
> 200 > ";<
"
~
000
";< a:
a: a: IOO "
w
1:
"
"'"
100 w
1: 1: "
" "'
~.000 10.000 20.000
6.000 10.000 20.000 CONFININO PnESSUAE (Jm•tP~fl
CONFININO PRESSURE (Jm. (Psfl

Fig. 19 Relationship aetween Shear Wave

Fig. 18 Relationship Between Shear Wave Velocity Velocity and Confining Pressure For Values
and Confining Pressure For Assumed Values of of The Insitu State of Stress Estimated
The Insitu State of Stress. From Geophysical Test Procedures.

TABLE 8
CHARACTERISTICS OF VARIOUS TECHNIQUES

FOR DETERMINING THE INSTITU

STATE OF STRESS IN SOILS

most applicable
geotechnical guanity measured
conditions
sonic velocity granular or stress d1rect1ons by cas Tubes to Volume Change
(2.4.1) cohesive soils multiple use; estimate Guard Cells Measured by
mean stress by single Change in Water
uae. Level

borehole best in cohesive mean lateral stress

pressuremeter soil also soil stiffness.
(self drilling)
(2.4.2)
borehole frictional normal principal
stressprobe or <:ohesive stress regardless of
(2.4.3) orientation.

hydraulic fine-grained minimum principal

fracturing K •1 stress regardless of
0
(2.4.4) orientation.
anisotropic best in stress ratio.
vane shear frictional
(2.4.5) soil
The choice of techni~ue must be made on the basic circumstances
associated both vith the site and the experience and
facilities available to the engineer. We cannot include all
the various capabilities and limitations of each technique
and the table is not a substitute for sound engineering
judgment.

From !luck, et al {1974)

Fig. 20 Schematic Representation of Bore-
~ole Pressure Meter.
 895

TABLE 9 Bladder Gas Inlet

Water In
APPLICABILITY OF FIELD METHODS FOR MEASURING KO
Slurry Out
UNDER VARIOUS GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

Soil Type Fine Grained Course Grained

lateral lateral
stresses
equal
stresses
equal
.,
.5"
~
Bladder ~rnbrane Shown
.... ~· Expanded
., ., ....."' 0 ., "'
0 -"'
0
~~ .....
...." ...."
.,...."
.... ~~N ...."'
~ N
" ....
"'""'"
.........
.......... ..... ..... ..... ~~
0
~ 1_: ..... ...
,....,., ",
"'0
!l :g '
""
0
....... "'0
o...< ""
'
""'
0 ~

" "" ""0 ,...., 0'

:z:u
0 0 ""
> 0
ou ~! :z:u
0 0 >
ou .........
O"'"'
X

STRESS HISTORY 0 0 ," 0 0 ,"

~t-1
"' "' ~E-o
"' "'
Acous~ic Velocity X X X X X X crn
Variable
Auger
Borehole Pressureroeter X X ",!fA "S/A oh Height

Borehole Stressprobe X X
I X X crn

Hydraulic Frac~uring
I
X N/A I X N/A N/A N/A 0
Fig. 21 Schematic Representation
Anisotropic Vane Shear N/A X X N/A Ko
JI of Self Boring Pressure Meter.

STRESS CODE From Huck, et al (1974)

Ko • "h lev

TABLE 10 LEGEND
0 40 • 70 OS 7~10 ~6~
e 20 ·:)()OS 100/0 ~OJ
e 20 ·:)()OS 100/0 494
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRESENTATION - WOOO EQUATION
-- ISHIHARA

OF INSITU GEOPHYSICAL TEST RESULTS

l, SOIL PROFILE
4000
WATER TABLE LOCATION ...
u

2. MATERIAL PROPERTIES
...
!!

>.
s
CLASSIFICATION 3000

GEOLOGIC ORIGIN .
,:
u
0
GRAIN SIZE (HOW WAS FINE FRACTION MEASURED)
...-'
>
LIMITING DENSITIES (COHESIONLESS SOILS)
ATTERBERG LIMITS (COHESIVE SOILS)
lNSITU UNIT WEIGHT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
..
VOID RATIO

1000
3, WAVE VELOCITY AS A FuNCTION OF DEPTH

COMPRESSION WAVE VELOCITY

99.4
SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY DEGREE
~·
OF
~·
SATURATION , 5, PERCENT
~

4. INSITu CoNFINING PRESSURE Fig. 22 Fluid Wave Velocity - Degree of

Saturation - Void Ratio Relation-
VERT! CAL STRESS ships for Ottawa Sand in Pulse
Chamber (Theoretical Values and
HORIZONTAL STRESS Experimental Results) (From Allen
et al, 1980).