Dynamic Properties of Piedmont Residual Soils
This article has a reply.
VIEW THE REPLYPublication: Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 122, Issue 10
Abstract
Piedmont residual soils were formed by in-situ weathering of igneous and metamorphic rocks. In this research project, their dynamic properties (shear modulus and damping) were investigated by performing a combination of resonant column and torsional shear tests. These properties were evaluated with respect to confining pressure, shear strain amplitude, particle size distribution, cyclic frequency, and number of cycles and compared to results obtained from other studies reported in the literature. Totally 32 specimens of residual soils were tested. These residual soils were classified as MH, ML, SM-ML, and SM, according to the Unified Soil Classification System. The normalized shear modulus and damping values were found to be in the same range as reported by other authors for transported sands, silts, and clays. With increase in the shear strain amplitude, the normalized shear modulus decreased and damping increased at a rate faster than that for clays but slower than that exhibited by sands. An analytical model was established to predict the shear modulus and the damping ratio as a function of confining pressure and shear strain amplitude for four types of Piedmont residual soils.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Hardin, B. O., and Black, W. L. (1968). “Vibration modulus of normally consolidated clay.”J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 94(SM2), 353–368.
2.
Hardin, B. O., and Drnevich, V. P.(1972a). “Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and curves.”J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 98(7), 667–692.
3.
Hardin, B. O., and Drnevich, V. P.(1972b). “Shear modulus and damping in soils: measurement and parameter effects.”J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 98(6), 603–624.
4.
Isenhower, W. M. (1979). “Torsional simple shear/resonant column properties of San Francisco Bay mud,” Geotechnical Engineering Thesis GT80-1, Geotech. Engrg. Ctr., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
5.
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. (1970). “Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses.”Rep. No. EERC 70-10, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
6.
Sowers, G. F., and Richardson, T. L. (1983). “Residual soils of piedmont and Blue Ridge.”Transp. Res. Record 919, Transp. Res. Board, Washington, D.C.
7.
Stokoe, K. H. II, Isenhower, W. M., and Hsu, J. R. (1980). “Dynamic properties of offshore silty samples.”OTC 3771, Offshore Technol. Conf., OTC, Houston, Tex.
8.
Stokoe, K. H. II, and Lodde, P. F. (1978). “Dynamic response of San Francisco Bay mud.”Proc., Earthquake Engrg. and Soil Dynamics Conf., ASCE, New York, N.Y., Vol. II, 940–959.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 122 • Issue 10 • October 1996
Pages: 813 - 821
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Oct 1, 1996
Published in print: Oct 1996
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.