Indian Geotechnical Conference 2010, GEOtrendz

December 1618, 2010

IGS Mumbai Chapter & IIT Bombay

Behaviour of Soil Under Cyclic Loading

Raghunandan, M.E.

Juneja, A.

Research Scholar
e-mail: raghunme@iitb.ac.in

Assistant Professor
e-mail: ajuneja@iitb.ac.in

Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, Mumbai

ABSTRACT
During seismic loading, natural soil is subjected to cyclic shear stresses at different amplitudes and frequencies
that will induce transient and permanent deformations. Literatures demonstrate the significant influence of dynamic
soils properties on the response and stability of soil layers. The objective of this paper is to address some of these
issues. Strain controlled cyclic triaxial tests were conducted at +/-0.4% cyclic shear strains and 1Hz frequency on
large 100mm diameter and 200mm high reconstituted triaxial samples prepared using soil samples collected from
a pilot area in Mumbai, and a clean sand sample. The response of soil samples to applied shear strains are
presented as decrease in cyclic stress and development of pore pressure with number of loading cycles. Further,
response of the soil is compared with that of clean sand. Results showed that the soil samples are less susceptible
to liquefaction compared to clean sand, with G and D values around 9 104kN/m2 and 15% respectively at 0.4%
shear strains, .
1. INTRODUCTION
Adequate information on dynamic soil properties, including
dynamic shear modulus, damping ratio, pore pressure
response and cyclic strength, are more essentially considered
in ground response and soilstructure interaction problems.
Previous works demonstrates many in-situ and laboratory
tests to determine these properties, from which, considering
the economy involved in field tests such as cross bore hole
survey, geophysical techniques, laboratory cyclic tests are
more commonly used. Cyclic triaxial, bender elements, cyclic
simple shear, resonance column are some of the commonly
used laboratory test equipments to evaluate the dynamic
properties of soil, under low strain to high strain amplitudes
(Lee and Seed 1967, Seed and Idriss 1970).
Soil response to cyclic or monotonic loading as obtained
in laboratory mainly depend upon the quality of the soil
sample used and the errors associated with the testing
equipment. Jardine et al. (1984) explained the important
sources of large unaccountable errors in conventional triaxial
experiments (1) difficulty in trimming a sample so that the
end faces are perpendicular to the vertical axis of symmetry,
(2) play in the connection between the load cell and the sample
top cap, and (3) bedding down at the ends of the sample, due
to local surface irregularities or voids. Whereas the quality
and repeatability of the sand samples is highly dependent on
the methodology used for procuring undisturbed soil samples

or the sample preparation techniques used in case of

remoulded and reconstituted samples (Raghunandan and
Juneja 2011). Many researchers (Lee and Seed 1967, Seed
and Idriss 1970, Mulilis et al 1977, Ladd 1977, Okur and
Ansal 2007, Lee and Sheu 2007) have studied the effect of
this issue on the measured dynamic soil properties. Few
literatures also attempt to compare the dynamic soils
properties obtained from laboratory and field tests (eg.
Kokusho 2004).
This paper examines the behaviour of saturated soil
samples under cyclic loading and further compared with that
of a sand sample (Juneja and Raghunandan 2011). The tests
conducted in this study are first described. Sample
preparation technique and the procedure used in the cyclic
triaxial tests are then briefly described. The data from
laboratory testing are used to study the variation of cyclic
stress, pore pressure built up, and liquefaction resistance of
locally available soil samples compared with that of the sand
sample.
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
All tests were conducted in ADsoil laboratory at IIT
Bombay. Triaxial samples of 100mm diameter and 200mm
long were prepared using locally available disturbed soil
samples. Samples from four different sites were collected
from a pilot area located in north eastern region of Mumbai,
between the Vihar and Powai lakes. The bore log data of

196

M.E. Raghunandan and A. Juneja

Table 1: Properties of the Soil Samples Collected from the Pilot Area

Specific Gravity, GS
2.67
2.66
2.68
2.67

Gravel %
0
15
7
21

Sand %
13
60
53
46

the site showed the presence of rocky strata within a shallow

depth of 0.1- to 4.0m, and the top layers composed of loose
fills of sandy and gravelly soils with varied percent of clay.
Samples were collected from the top layer (1.0m depth).
Table 1 shows the properties of all the soil samples as
obtained from various soil test reports. Also, it is noted
that all the samples collected were above the ground water
table, with 10 to 12% water content and dry density around
18kN/m2.
Also used for comparison is a river bed sand obtained
from Gujarat region. Figure 1 shows the particle size
distribution curves of all the samples. Results that the sand
sample used is uniformly graded with very less fines, having
mean grain size, D50 = 0.3mm, uniformity coefficient,
CU = 2.12, and coefficient of curvatures, CC = 1.47. Specific
gravity of the sand is equal to 2.63. The maximum and
minimum void ratios of the sand sample were 0.795 and
0.492, respectively.

Silt %
40
17
30
15

Clay %
47
8
10
18

(a)

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0

10

15

20

25

30

Number of cycles

80

60

Sample-1
Sample-2
Sample-3
Sample-4
Sand sample

40

20

0.1

1
Sieve size (mm)

10

Deviator stress (kN/m2)

200

100
50
0
-50
0

100

Fig. 1: Grain Size Distribution Plots of Soil Samples Used in

the Present Experimental Study

Triaxial samples were prepared using dry tamping

technique. Details of sample preparation technique are
discussed elsewhere (Raghunandan and Juneja 2010). In
essence, oven dried soil samples were tamped in 3 layers
with a 50mm diameter tamper of 240g weight. The triaxial
samples were prepared directly on the cell base to minimize
the disturbance involved during placing the samples. Dry
unit weight was maintained close to the field measurement.
Samples were then flooded with carbon-di-oxide gas
followed by de-aired water under an effective stress of about
15- to 20kN/m2. Further, saturation was achieved using

(c)

150

-100
5

10

15

20

25

30

Number of cycles
1

Pore pressure ratio, ru

Percentage finer (%)

Plastic Limit
23
25
26
18

0.3

100

0
0.01

Liquid Limit
48
44
48
38

back pressure increments. Saturation was continued till the

Skemptons (1954) B-factor was achieved close to 1. At
the end of saturation, the samples were consolidated at
required effective stress (c) and then sheared under cyclic
loading with drainage valve closed. Shear strains of
+/ 0.4% were maintained in the tests. Figure 2a-c shows
the input loading in terms of cyclic axial strains and
recorded data of cyclic deviator stress and pore water
pressure with number of loading cycle from a cyclic triaxial
test conducted on sand sample.
Cyclic axial strain (%)

Sample
Sample-1
Sample-2
Sample-3
Sample-4

(b)

0.8
0.6
0.4

RD = 60%; c = 310kN/m2;
b = 110kN/m2; p'0 = 200kN/m2;
Frequency = 1Hz

0.2
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

Number of cycles
Fig. 2: Applied Loading and Response of Soil Samples at
Different Loading Cycles (a) Axial Strain (b) Deviator Stress
(c) Pore Water Pressure

197

Behaviour of Soil Under Cyclic Loading

0.4

Sample-1
Sample-2
Sample-3
Sample-4
Sand

0.3

Cyclic stress ratio

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Five soil samples were tested using a strain controlled
cyclic triaxial tests, conducted on a servo controlled,
pneumatic actuator to study the cyclic behaviour of
collected soil samples compared with that of clean sand.
The deviator stress and pore pressure build-up was
recorded.
Figure 3 shows the variation of pore pressure ratio (ru)
with number of loading cycles (N) for the soil samples.
In this paper, pore pressure ratio (ru) is defined as the ratio
of excess pore water pressure to the effective confining
pressure. As r u reaches unity, the excess pore water
pressure reaches the total stress, soil deposit suddenly
moves from solid to a liquefied state, this phenomenon in
general is described as soil liquefaction. Observations from
Figure 3 show that the soil samples showed peak ru equal
to 0.74 even after 500 loading cycles, whilst in case of
sand sample, ru reached unity at around 32 cycles.

0.2

0.1

0
0

ru at N=500
0.4

Sample-1
Sample-2
Sample-3
Sample-4
Sand

0.2

0.74
0.62
0.62
0.64
NL = 10

200

300

400

500

= 0.15%
= 0.30%

= 0.45%
= 0.60%

1.5

= 0.75%
= 0.90%

= 1.05%
0.5

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Normalised number of cycles, N/NL

1.2

(b)
500

Number of cycles, N
Fig. 3: Pore Water Pressure Response with Number
of Loading Cycles

Figure 4 shows the variation of cyclic deviator stress

with number of loading cycles. Figure explains the decrease
in strength of soil samples with cyclic loading, and
compared for different samples tested in this study. The
deviator stress is expressed as cyclic stress ratio (CSR).
CSR is the ratio of cyclic deviator stress to the initial mean
effective principle stress. As expected the soil samples
collected from the site showed CSR value of about 0.15
even after 500 loading cycles, whilst in case of sand sample,
CSR reached to zero at 32 cycles indicating liquefaction.
Hence, as evident from previous literatures, the soil samples
collected from the study area is less susceptible to
liquefaction.

Pore pressure ratio, ru

100

400

(a)

0
0

300

2.5

Cyclic stress ratio, CSR

Pore pressure ratio, ru

0.6

200

Number of cycles, N
Fig. 4: Variation of Cyclic Deviator Stress with Number of
Loading Cycles

0.8

100

= 0.15%
0.8

= 0.30%
= 0.45%

0.6

= 0.60%
= 0.75%

0.4

= 0.90%
= 1.05%

0.2
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Normalised number of cycles, N/NL

Fig. 5: Effect of Shear Strains on Cyclic Behaviour of

Sand Samples; (a) CSR; (b) Pore Pressure Ratio
Figure 5 shows the effect of applied shear strains on
the cyclic behaviour of sand samples. Results showed a
huge variation in the number of cycles required for

198

M.E. Raghunandan and A. Juneja

liquefaction (NL) from around 8 to 45 cycles. Hence, the

number of cycles is normalised with the number of cycles
required for liquefaction, N/NL. Figure 5a shows CSR value
of 0.5 to 2 in the first loading and further decrease with
increase in number of loading cycles. This is due to the
accumulation of excess pore water pressure as shearing is
continued as shown in figure 5b. Further, CSR reaches to
zero and ru reaches unity as N/NL reaches unity, indicating
liquefaction.
80

Deviator stress (kN/m2)

Sample: L5-1
d = 13.3kN/m3
40

'c = 150kN/m2
(a)cyc = 0.25%

AT

Cycle No. 3
0

AL
-40

-80
-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

Axial strain (%)

Fig. 6: Loading-Unloading (Hysteresis) Loop of Third
Cycle on Sample-4

Recent works on dynamic soil properties explains the

importance of dynamic material properties to evaluate
response and stability of surface soil layers, basic dynamic
soil characteristics needed for dynamic analyses including
shear modulus and damping ratio (Kokusho 2004, Lee and
Sheu 2007, Okur and Ansal 2007). In this study, shear
modulus (G) and damping ratio (D) are calculated using
the hysteresis loop as suggested in ASTM D 3999-91. The
third loading cycle was considered as the representative
cycle and hence used to calculate G and D. Figure 6 shows
a typical hysteresis loop obtained from test conducted on
sample-4. G and D values for all the samples varied within
a range of 9 104kN/m2 and 15% respectively at 0.4%
shear strains, .
4. CONCLUSIONS
Much useful data obtained from laboratory strain controlled
cyclic triaxial tests on soil samples obtained from the study
area is presented, and further compared with a clean sand
sample. Results showed that the soil samples are less
susceptible to liquefaction with, CSR value of about 0.15
even after 500 loading cycles, whilst in case of sand sample,

CSR reached to zero at 32 cycles indicating liquefaction.

G and D values for all the samples were observed around 9
4
kN/m2 and 15% respectively at 0.4% shear strains, .

1 0

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The first author gratefully acknowledges the support of IIT
Bombay in providing research scholarship to pursue his
PhD program at the institute. The authors are also
profoundly grateful to Estate office of IIT Bombay for its
help to obtain the borehole data.
REFERENCES
Jardine, R.J., Symes, M.J. and Burland, J.B. (1984). The
measurement of soil stiffness in the triaxial apparatus.
Geotechnique. 34(3), 323-340.
Juneja, A., and Raghunandan, M.E. (2011). Effect on cyclic
response and liquefaction resistance due to de-saturation
of sand. Geotechnical Special Publication, ASCE
(GEO-FRONTIERS-2011) (Accepted).
Kokusho, T. (2004). Nonlinear site response and strain
dependent soil properties. Current science 87(10), 13631369.
Ladd R.S. (1977). Specimen preparation and cyclic stability
of sands. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental
engineering ASCE. 103(6), 535-547.
Lee, C.J. and Sheu, S.F. (2007). The stiffness degradation
and damping ratio evolution of Taipei silty clay under
cyclic straining. Soil dynamics and earthquake
engineering. 27, 730740.
Lee, K.L. and Seed, H.B. (1967). Drained strength
characteristics of sands. Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division ASCE, 93(SM6), 117-141.
Mulilis, J.P., Seed, H.B., Chan, C.K., Mitchell, J.K., and
Arulanandan, K. (1977). Effects of sample preparation
on sand liquefaction. Journal of geotechnical
engineering division ASCE. 103(2), 91107.
Okur, D.V., and Ansal, A. (2007). Stiffness degradation of
natural fine grained soils during cyclic loading. Soil
dynamics and earthquake engineering. 27, 843854.
Raghunandan, M.E., and Juneja, A. (2011). Effect of sample
preparation on particle packing. International Journal
of Geomechanics and Geoengineering (tentatively
accepted, under review).
Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I. (1970). Soil moduli and damping
factors for dynamic response analysis, Report No. EERC
70-10, Fundamental of Soil Mechanics, Elsvier.
Skempton, A.W. (1954). The pore-pressure coefficients A
and B. Geotechnique. 4(4), 143-147.