Schaeffer2013 Dynamic Modulus and Damping Ratio Measurements From Free-Free

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.
Submitted October 22, 2012; accepted April 8, 2013;

posted ahead of print April 10, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000945
Dynamic Modulus and Damping Ratio Measurements from Free-Free

Resonance and Fixed-Free Resonant Column Procedures
Kevin Schaeffer, S.M.,1 ASCE; Richard Bearce,2 S.M. ASCE; and Judith Wang,3 A.M.,
ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH on 05/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Abstract
t
Resonant Column (RC) procedures may be used to quantify a soil’s shear modulus
ip
degredation and damping ratio curves along the small strain (~10-4% to ~10-1%) range.
d cr
However, RC procedures often cannot provide measurements of very small strain (<~10-
4
%) dynamic mechanical properties. The objective of this study is to determine if Free-
te s
Free Resonance (FFR) procedures may be used to provide complementary very small
di nu
strain maximum dynamic modulus and minimum damping ratio to small strain shear
modulus degredation and damping ratio curves from RC testing procedures. A plastic
ye a
control specimen in six different free-free configurations was used to determine
op M
appropriate free-free boundary conditions for axial FFR procedures. Five cohesive soil
specimens were then subjected to axial FFR and torsional fixed-free RC procedures to
C ted
evaluate the consistency of the resulting strain-dependent modulus and damping

measurements. It can be concluded that: (1) the specific free-free boundary conditions
used in axial FFR testing do not significantly influence measured elastic or dissipative
ot p
properties and (2) axial FFR and torsional fixed-free RC procedures can be used to
N ce
generate consistent and complementary shear modulus data but cannot be used to
generate consistent and complementary damping ratios, due to the inherent issues
Ac
involved in approximating nonlinear, microstructural sources of energy losses with

macroscopic, equivalent linear models of dissipation.
Subject Headings
1
National Science Foundation Research Experience for Undergraduates Research Assistant; Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado School of Mines; 1600 Illinois Street, Golden, CO 80401;
kschaeff@mines.edu
2
Graduate Research Assistant; Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado School of
Mines; 1600 Illinois Street, Golden, CO 80401; rbearce@mines.edu
3
Assistant Professor; Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado School of Mines; 1600
Illinois Street, Golden, CO 80401; judiwang@mines.edu
Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Submitted October 22, 2012; accepted April 8, 2013;
Dynamic Properties; Shear Modulus; Elastic Modulus; Damping Ratio; Soil Dynamics
Introduction
A well-established laboratory procedure for the determination of a soil’s small strain
(~10-4% to ~10-1%), shear strain (γ)-dependent shear modulus (G(γ)) and damping ratio
(D(γ)) is the fixed-free torsional resonant column (RC) test (e.g., Hardin 1965, Hardin and
t
Black 1968, Seed and Idriss 1970, Drnevich et al. 1978, Stokoe and Lodde 1978, EPRI
ip
1993, Kramer 1996, Lai and Rix 1998, ASTM D4015-07 2007). Fixed-free torsional RC
d cr
procedures typically involve the torsional vibration of a cylindrical soil specimen
enclosed within a triaxial cell. The specimen is fixed at its base while its top is
te s
torsionally vibrated until its resonant frequency is found. The soil’s shear modulus at
di nu
the corresponding strain level, G(γ), may then be determined using one-dimensional
shear wave propagation theory. D(γ) may also be determined using a variety of
ye a
different methods, such as the half-power bandwidth method or the logarithmic
op M
decrement method.
RC devices are often limited, however, in that they typically cannot measure very
C ted
small strain (<~10-4%) maximum shear modulus (Gmax) or minimum damping ratio (Dmin)
without the addition of supplemental equipment (e.g., Lai and Rix 1998). Gmax and Dmin
are considered constant at these very low strain levels, and Gmax in particular is
ot p
extremely important for mechanistic dynamic geotechnical engineering design (e.g.,

N ce
Kramer 1996, Lai and Rix 1998, Ashlock and Pak 2010). One of the most commonly
researched methods for enhancing RC devices to measure Gmax and Dmin involves the
Ac
inclusion of piezoelectric bender and extender elements in the RC device’s triaxial cell
(e.g., Souto et al. 1994, Brocanelli and Rinaldi 1998, Ferreira et al. 2007, Mohammad
2008, Karl et al. 2008). This experimental configuration allows for the quantification of
one specimen’s shear modulus degradation and damping ratio curves over both the very
small and small strain regimes while holding all specimen boundary conditions constant.
While bender and extender elements are a powerful tool for complementing RC
data, they are relatively expensive, delicate pieces of equipment that typically must be
custom-machined to incorporate into an existing RC device. The free-free resonance

(FFR) test may represent an alternative laboratory procedure for measuring Gmax and
Dmin to complement small strain RC data. FFR laboratory procedures for soil materials
utilize nondestructive, geophysical seismic wave testing techniques similar to the
methods described in ASTM C215 – 08 (2008) for the determination of the fundamental
frequencies and corresponding moduli of cylindrical concrete specimens (e.g., Nazarian

et al. 2002, Kalinski and Thummaluru 2005, Ǻhnberg and Holmen 2008, Ryden 2009,
t
ip
Toohey 2009, Toohey et al. 2010). Cylinders of three-phase soil materials are excited
with moderate impulse loads, and the resulting acceleration responses are analyzed
d cr
using an elastic continuum framework due to the very low strain levels applied. Wave
te s
propagation theory is utilized to determine the specimen’s resonant frequency and its
di nu
corresponding Gmax from the resulting dynamic response. Dmin may be determined by
examining the specimen’s decaying acceleration response and using either the half-
ye a
power bandwidth or logarithmic decrement method.
op M
While the basic procedures for FFR testing are relatively straightforward, certain
details in their implementation and the resulting data are currently unclear. Previous
C ted
studies involving laboratory FFR tests document cylindrical free-free specimens

suspended at both ends by straps or string cradles (e.g., Kim et al. 1997, Nazarian et al.
2002, Kalinski and Thummaluru 2005) or horizontally or vertically resting on a sheet of
ot p
foam padding (e.g., Toohey 2009, Ryden 2009). Boundary conditions affect system
N ce
stiffness, which in turn influences system resonant frequencies, dynamic time histories,
and the corresponding calculated Gmax and Dmin. The extent to which specific FFR
Ac
boundary condition configurations influence corresponding calculated Gmax and Dmin is

unclear. Additionally, unlike the usage of enclosed bender and extender elements
within a fixed-free RC device, the boundary conditions involved in FFR laboratory tests
are significantly different from those used in a fixed-free torsional RC test, and the
relative values of measured properties from the two tests on the same soil specimens
have not been quantified.
This study addresses the aforementioned issues through the presentation of: (1)
Gmax and Dmin obtained from one homogenous, plastic FFR control cylinder in six possible

free-free boundary conditions; and (2) a comparative synthesis of very small and lower-
bound small strain shear moduli and damping ratios obtained from FFR and fixed-free
torsional RC tests, respectively, on five cohesive soil specimens where the strain-
dependency of the material properties are evaluated. The analysis of these data yield
insight as to whether or not axial FFR procedures may be used to provide

complementary, consistent very small strain Gmax and Dmin to small strain G(γ) and D(γ)
t
ip
from fixed-free torsional RC testing procedures.
d cr
Geotechnical Testing Procedures
Both fixed-free torsional RC procedures and axial FFR laboratory tests can be
te s
conducted in a multitude of different ways, depending upon equipment specifics.
di nu
Descriptions of the RC and FFR procedures used for this work are presented in the
following two subsections.
ye a
op M
Fixed-Free RC Testing Procedures
The fixed-free torsional RC testing procedures for this study were performed using a
C ted
commercially purchased GDS Instruments RC device and its associated software, GDS
Lab (GDS Instruments 2008). The characteristics of this equipment pertinent to the
generation and interpretation of the presented data are summarized. For complete
ot p
operational details, the reader is referred to the RC device handbook provided by the
N ce
commercial manufacturer (GDS Instruments 2008).

Cylindrical soil specimens (7 cm diameter, 14 cm in length) are placed within the RC
Ac
device’s triaxial cell using two scored end platens: the bottom platen affixes the
specimen to the RC base, and the top platen connects the top free end of the specimen
to an electromagnetic drive motor such that it may be torsionally harmonically excited.
The user input to the electromagnetic drive motor is specified via an input voltage with
a value between 0 and 1 volt. The device then sweeps through a range of harmonic
torsional loads of varying frequencies until γ maximizes, indicating the torsional
resonant frequency, ft (reported in Hz). GDS Lab post-calculates the value of γ from data
from an accelerometer connected to the top platen as:

FCVR
J (1)
(2S ft ) 2 LA
where F is a nonuniform strain correction factor equal to 0.80, C is a device-specific

accelerometer calibration factor, V is the accelerometer output in Volts, R is the
specimen radius, L is the specimen length, and A is the accelerometer offset distance
from the center of the specimen (GDS Instruments 2008). The soil’s shear modulus at
t
ip
this strain level, G(γ), is then determined by GDS Lab using standard one-dimensional
torsional shear wave propagation theory as (e.g., Kramer 1996, ASTM D4015 – 07 2007):
d cr
§ 2S ft L ·
G (J ) U vs 2 U¨ ¸ (2)
© E ¹
te s
di nu
where ρ is the specimen’s total mass density, vs is the material’s compressional wave
velocity, and β is a device-specific calibration factor used to remove the extraneous
ye a
moment of inertia contributions from the device’s end platens and the electromagnetic
drive motor (GDS Instruments 2008). The torsional excitation is then halted, and GDS
op M
Lab analyzes the decaying free vibration response using the logarithmic decrement
method to determine the strain-dependent damping ratio, D(γ) (e.g., Clough and
C ted
Penzien 1975, ASTM D4015 – 07 2007, GDS Instruments 2008). Previous researchers
have extensively documented potential problems with evaluating D(γ) using a voltage-
ot p
based RC system, particularly with respect to the back electromotive force (EMF) effect
N ce
(e.g., Wang et al. 2003, Cascante et al. 2003). The voltage-based RC system used for this
study was built with a correction for back EMF, providing an open circuit through the
Ac
electromagnetic drive motor such that the overestimation of D(γ) from the back EMF
effect is removed (GDS Instruments 2008). This procedure is repeated at increasing
levels of voltage such that G(γ) and D(γ) measurements are taken at discrete, levels of γ
ranging between ~10-4% to ~10-1%. These discrete data points may then be used to
interpolate the specimen’s G(γ) and D(γ) across the small strain regime.
FFR Laboratory Testing Procedures

The FFR equipment used for this study was an in-house system and its associated
software, SeisNDT v1.0. Since this is a custom-built, unique device, an explicit
description of the FFR procedures used for this work is presented. The FFR testing
procedures described in this study are not to be confused with free-free RC procedures
using a Drnevich-type free-free RC apparatus, which, like the fixed-free RC procedures

previously described, is generally used for the measurement of G(γ) and D(γ) along the
t
ip
small strain range and can be modified to also measure Gmax and Dmin (e.g., Drnevich et
al. 1978, Ashlock and Pak 2010). The FFR procedures described herein are exclusively
d cr
for the purpose of measuring Gmax and Dmin.
te s
The experimental setup involves cylindrical specimens of unconfined cohesive soils
di nu
or physically confined or vacuum suctioned cohesionless soils positioned such that both
ends are left unconstrained. The specimen is then axially excited at one of its ends with
ye a
a manually applied impulse load that results in a compressional wave propagating
op M
through the specimen at a very small strain (<~10-4%) level (Figure 1) (e.g., Ryden 2009,
Toohey 2009). This impulse load is applied using a brief manual impact from a small
C ted
hammer or rod which may be instrumented with a load cell (e.g., Texas Department of
Transportation 2004). However, it not necessary to know the exact magnitude of the
impulse loading as long as it is significant enough for an accelerometer attached to the
ot p
corresponding point on the opposite end of the specimen to measure system response
N ce
with a satisfactorily high signal-to-noise ratio. For the purposes of this study, a wooden
rod was used to manually apply axial/compressional impulse loadings via briefly applied
Ac
impacts in the manner described by Toohey (2009).

For sufficient statistical averaging, each specimen is excited at least five times for
each axial FFR test measurement taken (Ryden 2009). A lightweight 100 mV/g
piezoelectric accelerometer (PCB SN-126847) is lightly held against the specimen in the
position seen in Figure 1. The mass of the accelerometer was approximately 2.5% of the
lightest soil sample specimen examined in this study and was thus deemed insignificant
in influencing the resonant vibration of the examined specimens. The time history data
are recorded with a sampling frequency of 200 kHz and 16-bit analog-to-digital

conversion, and the effective resolution of the measurements (accounting for both bit
resolution and noise) is 0.58 V (0.06 m/s2) (Toohey 2009). The signals are filtered using
an 800-point Tukey window with a cosine to constant section ratio of 0.3 to remove the
portions of the signals associated with the initial forced vibration response (Toohey
2009). The Tukey parameters were kept constant at the aforementioned values for all
of the studies examined herein; the resulting data are insensitive to reasonable
t
ip
variations in these subjective filter parameters.
To obtain the very small strain elastic modulus, Emax, and the corresponding very
d cr
small strain shear modulus, Gmax, from an axial FFR test, a Fast-Fourier Transform (FFT)
te s
analysis is performed on the five filtered signals using 80,000 data points (i.e., 400 ms),
di nu
such that a frequency resolution of 2.5 Hz is obtained. The resulting five normalized
acceleration versus frequency signals are then averaged to determine an average
ye a
normalized frequency spectrum. An average resonant compressional frequency as
op M
indicated by the ordinate value of the first dominant peak may thus be determined
(Ryden 2009). This value is then used as fc (in Hz) for the determination of Emax using
C ted
one-dimensional compressional wave propogation theory:
Emax U vc 2 U (2Lfc )2 (3)

ot p
where vc is the material’s compressional wave velocity (Toohey et al. 2010, Ryden et al.
N ce
2006). Equation (3) has been shown to be valid for free-free specimens having length to
diameter ratios greater than or equal to 2, such that the wavelength may be taken as 2L
Ac
(Ryden 2009, ASTM C215-08 2008). The very small strain shear modulus, Gmax, may then
be determined via the standard elastic relationship (ASTM C215-08 2008):
Emax
Gmax (4)
2(1 X )
where υ is the Poisson’s ratio of the examined specimen. To obtain the very small strain
Dmin from an axial FFR test, the five acceleration time histories are averaged, and the
logarithmic decrement method (e.g., Clough and Penzien 1975) is used on the decaying
free vibration portions of acceleration time history signal. The logarithmic decrement

method was selected for the interpretation of Dmin for this study due to the fact that
the logarithmic decrement method is embedded in the commercial software associated
with the fixed-free RC device used in this study. It was therefore used in determining
Dmin in the FFR procedures to provide consistency in the calculation methodologies
between the two testing procedures.

Gmax and Dmin from a FFR test correspond to a very small shear strain level, γmin. The
t
ip
magnitude of γmin is not typically explicitly measured in FFR procedures via the usage of
strain gauges, as: (1) the strain levels are expected to be less than ~10-4% and would
d cr
require highly sensitive instrumentation to be attached to particulate, three-phase soil
te s
material samples, and (2) due to the nature of the FFR test setup (e.g., the manual
di nu
application of the loading and the limited range of the accelerometers used), it is
typically assumed that the strain values induced will be less than ~10-4%. However, the
ye a
maximum magnitude of γmin can be estimated via the appropriately adjusted double
op M
integration of the acceleration time history and appropriate strain transformations on
averaged measures of strain. To obtain an estimate of the FFR strain level to ensure
C ted
that the measurements are within the very small strain range, the five axial acceleration
time histories are averaged and twice integrated using Berg and Housner’s (1961)
algorithm. High pass filters (with parameters that must be subjectively applied, based
ot p
upon the observed resulting numerical integrations (e.g., Boore and Bommer 2005)) are
N ce
applied at both integrations to remove unphysical displacement drifts inherent in

numerically integrating digitized accelerometer records (e.g., Boore et al. 2002, Boore
Ac
and Bommer 2005). This results in an estimate of the average filtered displacement
time history, x(t). The maximum magnitude of the time-varying very small axial strain,
εmin, may then be approximated based upon an averaged, macroscopic definition as:
x(t ) max
H min (5)
L
where x(t ) max is the maximum absolute displacement of the adjusted displacement
time history. Standard linear elastic theory and appropriate tensorial elastic strain

transformations are then used to find the corresponding γmin, averaged on the
macroscopic scale as (e.g., Gere and Timoshenko 1990):
J min H min XH min (6)

εmin and γmin are rough estimates of FFR strain that yield only general orders of
t
magnitude. Errors in the estimation will occur due to: (1) the subjective adjustment of
ip
the numerically integrated acceleration time histories (e.g., Boore and Bommer 2005)
d cr
and (2) the average macroscopic strain definitions used. For the purposes of
completeness for this study, estimated γmin from the adjusted acceleration time histories
te s
are presented to show that the measurements are within the very small strain range
di nu
while acknowledging the limitations in estimations.
An example of five acceleration time histories and the associated Tukey window
ye a
generated in one axial FFR test on one of the cohesive soil specimens examined in this
op M
study (Specimen 5 as listed in Table 1) is shown in Figure 2a. The corresponding
normalized and average frequency spectra are shown in Figure 2b. The corresponding
C ted
adjusted average filtered displacement time history is shown in Figure 2c. This
specimen was supported with “knife edge” free-free boundary conditions (Figure 3d). A
more detailed description of this boundary condition configuration and the rationale for
ot p
using it for the soil specimens are presented in later sections. The acceleration time
N ce
histories in Figure 2a vary slightly due to the manual application of the loading.
However, as seen in Figure 2b, the fc values of the five signals are almost insensitive to
Ac
these variations. The dominant peaks of all five signals are located at virtually the same
position along the ordinate axis, as the specimen vibrates at its resonant frequencies
regardless of the actual magnitude of the loading. It can also be seen from Figure 2b
that the impulse loading excites lower and higher frequencies of vibration in the sample
as represented by peaks located at lower and higher frequencies. The lower frequency
components with ordinate values at and near zero correspond to motions associated
with the rigid body movement of the free-free specimen; the higher frequency
components correspond to higher modes of vibration. Lower and higher frequency

mode shapes do not need to be considered, as the presence of alternate modes of

vibration does not alter fc or compromise Emax values as calculated by Equation (3)
(Toohey 2009).
Experimental Studies and Data Analysis

t
Influence of Boundary Conditions on FFR Test Procedures
ip
To determine appropriate FFR specimen boundary conditions to be used in this
d cr
study, the effects of possible free-free boundary condition configurations on FFR-
measured results were investigated using a 10.0 cm diameter, 30.0 cm long
te s
homogenous plastic cylinder. This plastic cylinder is used as a control specimen for the
di nu
FFR equipment used; its mass, volume, and density are shown in Table 1. The plastic
control cylinder was used instead of a soil material for this portion of the study for
ye a
experimental convenience: only very small strain properties are measured in the FFR
op M
procedure, and usage of the control cylinder allowed for the isolated examination of
boundary condition effects without having to consider natural soil specimens’ potential
C ted
inhomogeneities or anisotropic characteristics.

The plastic control cylinder was used for the comparison of FFR-measured results
from six different possible free-free boundary condition configurations (Figure 3).
ot p
These six potential configurations were selected based upon previous researchers’
N ce
suggestions for free-free boundary conditions and variations thereof. The six examined
configurations are described as follows:
Ac
(a) String-Suspended: The specimen is suspended horizontally from above by

two strings cradling its two ends. (Figure 3a)
(b) Horizontal Foam Supported: The specimen rests horizontally on a 20.0 cm
thick layer of foam padding on a rigid flat surface. (Figure 3b)
(c) Horizontal Foam Covered: The specimen is wrapped within a cylinder of
foam padding 30.0 cm thick and is placed horizontally on a rigid flat surface.
(Figure 3c)
(d) Knife-Edge: The specimen rests horizontally on a rigid flat surface. (Figure 3d)

(e) Vertical Foam Covered: The specimen is wrapped with the same cylinder of
foam as in (c) and is positioned vertically on an additional layer of foam
padding 20.0 cm thick on a rigid flat surface (Figure 3e)
(f) Vertical Foam Supported: The specimen stands vertically on a 20.0 cm thick
layer of foam padding on a rigid flat surface (Figure 3f)

Five axial FFR test measurements in each configuration were taken. For the FFR
t
ip
measurements for configurations (e) and (f), a small hole was cut in the supporting foam
such that the accelerometer could be held against the cylinder’s end. The resulting FFR-
d cr
measured Emax, Dmin, and εmin values are shown in Figure 4. Emax and εmin values are
te s
shown instead of Gmax and γmin as they are directly measured from the FFR tests without
di nu
requiring the assumption of a υ value. As Gmax and γmin are directly linearly proportional
to Emax and εmin (Equations (4) and (6)), the relative variations of the corresponding Gmax
ye a
and γmin values with respect to specific boundary condition configuration are the same.
op M
Cross marks indicate the individual values generated from the five FFR test
measurements for each configuration, while solid squares indicate the average values of
C ted
the five FFR test measurements for each configuration. Some of the cross marks are
virtually indistinguishable, indicating that separate tests in a certain configuration
generated almost identical results. The coefficients of variation (C.O.V.s) (standard
ot p
deviations normalized by corresponding arithmetic means) of the FFR test

N ce
measurements within each configuration and of the averages across the configurations
are shown in Table 2.
Ac
The modulus measurements in Figure 4a show that: (1) very high repeatability of the
measured Emax values from the test procedures can be achieved in any one of the test
configurations as indicated by the extremely low C.O.V.s, and (2) the specific FFR
boundary condition configuration used does not have an appreciable influence upon the
resulting measured Emax values. The only boundary condition with a non-zero C.O.V. in
measured Emax is configuration (d); the magnitude of this non-zero C.O.V. is insignificant
at 7.60 x 10-3. The average of the averages of the Emax values determined from the six
different configurations is 3,893.54 MPa, with a C.O.V. of 3.13 x 10-3. The extremely

small magnitude of this C.O.V. of the average Emax values across all of the configurations
indicates that the specific FFR boundary condition configuration does not have a
significant effect on the measurement of Emax.
However, the C.O.V.s of the damping ratios within each test configuration are on the
order of 10-1, which, although relatively small, are not necessarily negligible (Figure 4b).
These C.O.V.s are an order of magnitude higher than the C.O.V. of the averages of the
t
ip
Dmin values across the multiple configurations. A likely primary source of the non-
negligible C.O.V.s in Dmin values within each test configuration is the variations in the
d cr
magnitudes of the acceleration time histories from the manual application of the
te s
impulse loading (e.g., Figure 2a). This variation in magnitude does not have a significant
di nu
effect on fc (e.g., Figure 2b), as the specimen will vibrate at its fundamental resonant
frequencies regardless of the actual magnitude of loading: hence the negligible C.O.V.s
ye a
in the measurements of Emax within each boundary condition configuration (Equation
op M
(3)). However, the logarithmic decrement method used to calculate Dmin is dependent
on the ratio of the magnitudes of successive peaks of the acceleration time histories
C ted
(e.g., Clough and Penzien 1975). Therefore, they are more sensitive than Emax
measurements to manual variations in the application of the loading. The fact that the
C.O.V. of the averages across the configurations is lower than the C.O.V.s within each
ot p
configuration by an order of magnitude indicates that the specific FFR boundary

N ce
condition configuration is not the primary source of variability in Dmin. It can also be
seen from Figure 4c that the estimated strain levels are all on the order of 10-7%,
Ac
indicating that the measurements are within the very small strain regime (<~10 -4%).
Comparative Synthesis of Data from FFR and RC Testing Procedures
To investigate the potential usage of very small strain measurements from axial FFR
procedures to complement small-strain torsional fixed-free RC dynamic modulus and
damping ratio measurements, cohesive soil materials were used such that both
unconfined FFR and RC testing procedures could be readily implemented. Soil materials
were chosen for this portion of the study instead of the plastic calibration cylinder to
capture the strain-dependent degredation and growth behaviors of soil materials’

dynamic moduli and damping ratios, respectively, from the very small strain range to
the small strain range. The cohesive soil used was an AASHTO A-6-7 (USCS CH) (CTL
Thompson 2011) obtained from a construction site in the Denver Metro area. The
optimum moisture content of this soil was found to be 20% based upon standard
Proctor tests (CTL Thompson 2011). The soil specimens were prepared such they were
within ±1.00% of this optimum water content. Five cylindrical specimens were prepared
t
ip
with dimensions of 7.00 cm in diameter by 14.0 cm in length. These dimensions were
chosen to conform to: (1) the equipment specifications of the commercial fixed-free RC
d cr
device used and (2) the minimum required 2:1 length to diameter ratio previously
te s
established for FFR laboratory procedures (Ryden 2009). The soil specimens were
di nu
compacted following ASTM D698-07 (2007) standards. The specimens’ total masses,
volumes, and densities are shown in Table 1.
ye aEach of the five cohesive soil specimens was tested ten times using axial FFR testing
op M
procedures and three times using torsional RC procedures. Only three repeated
measurements were taken for each of the specimens using RC procedures, as the
C ted
specimens began to dry out after the time duration required for the three RC test
measurements to be taken. The boundary condition configuration used for the axial FFR
procedures was Configuration (d), the “knife edge” configuration. As previously
ot p
discussed, the selection of a specific free-free boundary condition configuration does

N ce
not have an appreciable influence on the resulting measured values. This specific free-
free boundary condition configuration was therefore somewhat arbitrarily selected for
Ac
convenience and for the fact that it yielded the largest average value of Emax in the
control cylinder experiments. A uniform υ = 0.2 was estimated for all of the specimens,
based upon the median of the range suggested for clays by Bowles (1988). This value of
υ was used in conjunction with the measured Emax values in Equation (3) to determine
the corresponding Gmax values for the soil specimens from the axial FFR procedures
(Equation (4)).
As previously described, RC procedures may be performed over the entire small
strain regime to generate G(γ) and D(γ) curves. For the purposes of presenting a

comparative synthesis of the very small strain data from axial FFR testing and the small
strain data from torsional fixed-free RC testing, however, only the lower bound shear
strain G(γ) and D(γ) values from the three separate RC tests on each specimen are
reported. The shear modulus and damping ratio data points recorded for the higher
levels of shear strain from the RC tests follow the established, expected trends of
monotonic reduction and growth with respect to strain, respectively, as documented in
t
ip
the literature (e.g., Vucetic and Dobry 1991, EPRI 1993). Therefore, only the G(γ) and
D(γ) values corresponding to the lower bound shear strains ( ~10-4%) need be presented
d cr
in conjunction with Gmax and Dmin (<~10-4%) to evaluate the potential consistency of the
te s
data from the FFR and the RC procedures.
di nu
Gmax from the FFR procedures and the lower bound small strain G(γ) from the RC
procedures for the five soil specimens are shown in Figure 5. Dmin from the FFR
ye a
procedures and the lower bound small strain D(γ) from the RC procedures for the five
op M
soil specimens are shown in Figure 6. Corresponding estimated γmin from the FFR tests
and measured lower bound γ from the RC tests are shown in Figure 7. The cross marks
C ted
indicate the individual values generated from the ten FFR and the three RC tests, while
the solid squares indicate the average values of the FFR and RC tests for each specimen.
The C.O.V.s for all of the measurements are seen in Table 3. It can be seen from Figure
ot p
7 that the FFR estimated γmin are on the order of 10-6%, lower than the RC-measured
N ce
lower bound γ.
It can be seen from Figure 5 and from the C.O.V.s of Gmax and G(γ) in Table 3 that the
Ac
repeatability of modulus measurements is very high for the FFR and RC tests performed
on each specimen. The C.O.V.s of the averages of the five specimens’ moduli are one to
two orders of magnitude higher than the individual tests performed on each specimen,
which reflect the inherent variability in the natural soil specimens. It may also be seen
from Figure 5 that Gmax and G(γ) for the five soil specimens in general follow expected
degradation trends, despite differences in specimen boundary and loading conditions
between the FFR and RC tests. Specifically:

(1) Four out of the five average Gmax values from the FFR tests are higher than the
corresponding average lower bound small strain G(γ) values from the RC tests.
The specimen that does not follow this expected behavior (Specimen 2) has an
average Gmax and average lower bound small strain G(γ) within a small amount
(0.91 MPa) of each other. If a slightly lower value of υ were assumed instead of
the median value of 0.2 (Bowles (1988) recommends υ between 0.1 and 0.3 for
t
ip
unsaturated clays), Gmax would be increased, and this discrepancy in Specimen
2’s behavior would be readily removed.
d cr
(2) The averages of the Gmax and average lower bound small strain G(γ) values for
te s
Specimens 1, 2, and 5 are all within at most 5.60 MPa of each other, reflecting
di nu
expected leveling off of shear modulus at strains less than ~10-4%. However, the
ye a differences between the average Gmax values and the average lower bound small
strain G(γ) values of Specimens 3 and 4 are higher, at 14.22 MPa and 12.47 MPa,
op M
respectively. These differences are not unreasonably large but do not as clearly
reflect the expected leveling off of shear modulus as seen in Specimens 1, 2, and
C ted
5. The differences between the average Gmax and the average lower bound small
strain G(γ) values of Specimens 3 and 4 could be alleviated by changing the
assumed υ to a higher value within the recommended range, such that the
ot p
average Gmax values of Specimens 3 and 4 are reduced.

N ce
To remove the deviation from expected behavior noted in (1), the assumed υ should
be reduced, while to remove the deviation noted in (2), the assumed υ should be
Ac
increased. These recommendations appear contradictory; however, it is not necessarily

true and is in fact unlikely that the specimens’ true υ values are uniform. The individual
specimens’ υ will differ slightly due to the variations inherent in the manual preparation
and compaction of the natural soil samples. If nonuniform υ values are assumed, to
correct the deviations noted in (1) and (2), the assumed υ for Specimen 2 should be
reduced while the assumed υ for Specimens 3 and 4 should be increased.
Even considering these issues involved in the assumption of υ, the consistency of the
FFR and RC measured shear moduli data is evident, despite the significantly different

specimen boundary and loading conditions. The same cannot be said for the damping
ratio measurements. Figure 6 shows Dmin compared to lower bound small strain D(γ).
The differences are significant, with the FFR procedures predicting Dmin values a full
order of magnitude larger than the lower bound of the small strain D(γ) values. The FFR
and RC damping ratio data do not follow expected monotonic growth trends expected in
the variation of damping ratio with respect to increasing shear strain. It is possible that
t
ip
the FFR Dmin values are axially measured values and should be transformed to a form of
corresponding shear value; however, Dmin is ideally a material property independent of
d cr
direction for an approximately isotropic, unconfined soil material and is reported in the
te s
literature as such (e.g., Ryden 2009, Kalinski and Wallace 2011), even though
di nu
microscopic particle or soil fabric arrangements in the compressional direction versus
the rotational direction may be significantly different.
ye a Additionally, the order of
magnitude of the measured lower bound small strain D(γ) values (~<1%) is consistent
op M
with typical lower bound values reported by previous researchers for fixed-free RC
procedures on soil materials, regardless of whether the half-power bandwidth or
C ted
logarithmic decrement method is used (e.g., EPRI 1993, Wang et al. 2003). The order of
magnitudes of the lower bound small strain D(γ) values from fixed-free RC procedures
can indeed be higher (~1%-~5%) (e.g., Seed and Idriss 1970, Vucetic and Dobry 1991),
ot p
but the magnitudes observed in this study are not unreasonable, particularly when
N ce
considering the specific RC device’s removal of the back EMF effect on such that D(γ) is
not overestimated. However, the order of magnitude of the measured Dmin values (~1%
Ac
and greater – up to as high as 45% in Ryden (2009)) is also consistent with typical Dmin
values reported by previous researchers for FFR procedures on soils and pavement
materials. This is again true regardless of whether the logarithmic decrement method
or the half-power bandwidth method is used to determine Dmin (e.g., Ryden 2009,
Kalinski and Wallace 2011). Both forms of measurement therefore appear to result in
“correct” strain-dependent damping ratios that can be justified by previous literature
documenting the results of FFR and fixed-free RC testing procedures, even though they
do not agree with one another with respect to expected growth trends from Dmin to

lower bound small strain D(γ). This contradiction indicates that axial FFR and torsional
fixed-free RC procedures cannot provide complementary, consistent damping ratio data.
A potential explanation for why axial FFR and fixed-free torsional RC procedures
yield consistent shear modulus data but contradictory damping ratio data is in the
fundamental differences in the quantification of elastic and dissipative properties. The

shear moduli are dependent upon the measured quantities ft and fc. These resonant
t
ip
frequencies are macroscopic, specimen level behaviors directly measured by RC and FFR
procedures that inherently incorporate the varying macroscopic specimen boundary
d cr
conditions. These resonant frequencies can thus be used consistently with respect to
te s
the determination of the continuum torsional shear wave and compressional wave
di nu
velocities of the soil specimens, yielding appropriate and consistent shear moduli
measurements for the macroscopic material property measurements.
ye aHowever, the usage of a macroscopic damping ratio to quantify a material’s
op M
dissipative properties is notoriously problematic and has been extensively discussed in
the literature (e.g., Lazan 1968, Raggett 1975, Ungar 1992, Santamarina et al. 2001,
C ted
Jones 2001, Wang 2009). The main difficulty lies in the fact that an overall material
damping ratio does not specifically describe one unique, particular behavior but rather
describes the culmination of a multitude of nonlinear microstructural characteristics and
ot p
microscopic actions (e.g., interparticle slippage, the evolution of contact forces and
N ce
friction, particle rolling and frustration, solid-fluid interactions, stress and strain-
dependent fabric changes, or fabric anisotropy) (e.g., Santamarina et al. 2001, O’Sullivan
Ac
2011). Micromechanically based physical methods for modeling a soil’s dissipation from
the fundamental micro-mechanisms up to their macroscopic effects have been active
areas of both experimental and numerical investigation (e.g., Dobry et al. 1982, Chang
et al. 1991, O’Sullivan 2011, Ham et al. 2012). However, these microphysical descriptors
of material dissipation are still research-based methods and are not widely used for
describing the dissipative properties of soil materials for most practical civil engineering.
Instead, macroscopic observations are typically made of soil materials’ behaviors on the

specimen-scale and interpreted using equivalent linear mathematical material models

(e.g., Whitman 1970, Finn 1988, Santamarina et al. 2001).
The usage of an equivalent linear model for nonlinear dissipation (e.g., the Kelvin-
Voigt model, which results in the Dmin and D(γ) values used herein) results in increased
mathematical tractability and ease in interpretation of experimental data (e.g., Lazan

1968, Jones 2001). However, the material properties in equivalent linear models of
t
ip
nonlinear dissipation are phenomenologically extrapolated from laboratory tests
without explicitly considering the effects of the geometric configuration of the
d cr
experimental system (e.g., Lazan 1968, Jones 2001). Dmin and D(γ) traditionally used to
te s
quantify the dissipative properties of soil materials are too narrowly defined within the
di nu
equivalent linear mathematical framework to take into account differences in system
response due to different specimen boundary and loading conditions. The variations in
ye a
the potential FFR boundary conditions as discussed in the previous subsection are minor
op M
enough such that consistent Dmin values may be generated. However, the specimen
boundary and loading conditions across the axial FFR and torsional fixed-free RC tests
C ted
are too different to generate consistent values of Dmin and lower bound small strain D(γ).
Conclusions
The objective of this study was to determine if axial FFR procedures represent a
ot p
potential geotechnical testing technology to provide complementary, consistent very

N ce
small strain Gmax and Dmin to small strain G(γ) and D(γ) obtained from fixed-free torsional
RC testing procedures. This objective was investigated through: (1) FFR tests performed
Ac
on a plastic control specimen in six different free-free configurations to determine

appropriate free-free boundary conditions and (2) the comparison of data from axial
FFR and torsional fixed-free RC procedures on five cohesive soil specimens to take into
account the strain-dependence of soil materials’ dynamic mechanical properties. This
study is limited in that only cohesive soils were examined, due to the fact that only
unconfined laboratory FFR testing equipment was available for usage. Cohesionless
soils require confining pressures for RC testing procedures and vacuum suction and/or
physical confinement for FFR procedures; these isotropic or potentially anisotropic

confining stresses may add additional complexity with respect to determining

appropriate free-free boundary conditions for FFR procedures. Additionally, the values
of intrinsic damping measured by the RC and FFR procedures are phenomenological,
macroscopic quantifications intended to represent the cumulative effect of a multitude
of microscopic energy loss mechanisms (e.g., Wang 2009). Observed values of D(γ) and
Dmin are inherently physically imprecise, as they do not reflect the micromechanisms or
t
ip
microstructural variations involved in energy dissipation.
Given the scope and limitations of this study, the following conclusions are made:
d cr
(1) The C.O.V.s in FFR-measured Gmax are either zero or negligibly small. This
te s
indicates very high repeatability of FFR-measured Gmax data in any of the free-
di nu
free boundary condition configurations, despite the variations inherent in the
ye a manual application of the loading. This additionally indicates that the specific
free-free boundary condition used does not significantly affect modulus
op M
measurements for unconfined cohesive soils.
(2) The C.O.V.s in FFR-measured Dmin are small but not negligible for the repeated
C ted
tests within each of the six specific free-free boundary condition configurations
examined. Dmin data when generated via the logarithmic decrement method are
sensitive to the variations inherent in the manual application of the loading.
ot p
The specific free-free boundary condition used does not affect FFR-measured
N ce
Dmin values for unconfined cohesive soils more so than the variability from the
manual application of the loading.
Ac
(3) Axial FFR and torsional fixed-free RC procedures yield complementary,

consistent shear modulus data that follow expected degradation trends, despite
significant differences in specimen boundary and loading conditions. The
variations from expected behavior are most likely attributable to the assumption
of a uniform υ value amongst the five cohesive soil specimens. More precise
measurements could have been obtained had explicit υ values been measured
for each of the soil specimens.

(4) Axial FFR and torsional fixed-free RC procedures cannot be used to generate
complementary, consistent damping ratio data. The magnitudes of the FFR Dmin
values are one to two orders larger than the lower bound small strain D(γ) values
from the torsional fixed-free RC procedures. Equivalent linear models for
dissipation are limited in that they cannot account for micrsotructural

differences in the materials or differences in system response due to drastically
t
ip
different specimen boundary and loading conditions.
Conclusions (1) and (2) contribute to the further development and standardization
d cr
of FFR testing procedures. Conclusion (3) suggests that FFR technology may be used as
te s
an alternative to self-enclosed piezoelectric bender and extender elements for
di nu
complementing the small strain shear modulus degredation curves measured in RC tests
if υ is known or can be assumed. Additionally, due to the similarities in magnitudes of
ye a
Gmax and G(γ), it may be observed that, if means for explicitly measuring Gmax are
op M
unavailable, using the lower bound G(γ) from RC measurements as an estimate for Gmax
is a reasonable approximation.
C ted
Conclusion (4) indicates that FFR technology cannot be used for complementary
damping ratio measurements, due to the significant differences in the two tests’
boundary and loading conditions. Conclusion (4) also contributes to the speculation as
ot p
to what a “correct” measure of material damping should be, as measured viscous

N ce
damping ratios from different testing procedures can result in drastically different
values due to the macroscopic, equivalent linear approximations of microscopic,
Ac
nonlinear dissipative behaviors. However, although measures of D(γ) and Dmin do not
precisely represent the underlying microstructural physics of energy dissipation, they do
provide useful macroscopic quantifications that can be used for many infrastructure
scale modeling applications. Since axial FFR and torsional fixed-free RC data give such
drastically different measures of damping ratio, it is recommended to use the damping
ratio from the test configuration that most closely resembles the loading conditions
expected in the field for quantifying the soil material’s dissipative properties.
Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation
under Grant no. CMMI-1030976 and the Colorado Department of Transportation under
Study no. 80-30. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the National Science Foundation or the Colorado Department of

Transportation. The authors would also like to thank Nathan Toohey, a Colorado School
t
ip
of Mines doctoral candidate, for providing the photograph of the FFR setup in Figure 1.
d cr
References
Ǻhnberg, H. and Holmen, M. (2008). Laboratory Determination of Small Strain Moduli in
te s
Stabilized Soils. Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Sweden.
di nu
Ashlock, J. and Pak, R. (2010). “Application of Random Vibration Techniques to
Resonant Column Testing,” GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling,
ye a
and Design. ASCE GSP 199. Orlando, Florida, February 20 – 24, 2010.
op M
ASTM C215-08. (2008). “Standard Test Method for Fundamental Transverse,
Longitudinal, and Torsional Frequencies of Concrete Specimens,” ASTM
C ted
International, West Conshohoken, PA.

ASTM D698-07. (2007). “Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction
Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12 400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)),”
ot p
ASTM International, West Conshohoken, PA.

N ce
ASTM D4015-07. (2007). “Standard Test Methods for Modulus and Damping of Soils by
the Resonant Column Method,” ASTM International, West Conshohoken, PA.
Ac
Berg, G.V. and Housner, G.W. (1961). “Integrated Velocity and Displacement of Strong
Earthquake Ground Motion,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.
Vol. 51(2), pp. 175 – 189.
Boore, D.M. and Bommer, J.J. (2005). “Processing of Strong-Motion Accelerograms:
Needs, Options, and Consequences,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering.
Vol. 25, pp 93-115.
Boore, D.M., Stephens, C.D., and Joyner, W.B. (2002). “Comments on Baseline
Correction of Digital Strong-Motion Data: Examples from the 1999 Hector Mine,

California, Earthquake,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Vol.

92(4), pp 1543 – 1560.
Bowles, J.E. (1988). Foundation Analysis and Design. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Brocanelli, D., and Rinaldi, V. (1998). “Measurement of Low-Strain Material Damping
and Wave Velocity with Bender Elements in the Frequency Domain,” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal. Vol. 35, 1032 – 1040.
t
ip
Cascante, G.; Vanderkooy, J.; and Chung, W. (2003). “Difference Between Current And
Voltage Measurements in Resonant-Column Testing,” Canadian Geotechnical
d cr
Journal. Vol. 40, 806 – 820.
te s
Chang, C.S., Misra, A., and Sundaram, S.S. (1991). “Properties of Granular Packings
di nu
Under Low Amplitude Cyclic Loading,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
ye a Engineering. Vol. 10(4), 201-211.
Clough, R. and Penzien, J. (1975). Dynamics of Structures. McGraw-Hill, New York.
op M
CTL Thompson, Inc. (2011). “Pavement Design Standards and Construction
Specifications,” Report prepared for the Metropolitan Government Pavement
C ted
Engineers Council, Denver, CO.

Dobry, R., Ladd, R.S., Yokel, F.Y., Chung, E.M., and Powell, D. (1982). Prediction of Pore
Water Pressure Buildup and Liquefaction of Sands During Earthquakes by the
ot p
Cyclic Strain Method. NBS Building Science Series 138, U.S. Department of
N ce
Commerce.
Drnevich, V.P., Hardin, B.O., and Shippy, D.J. (1978). “Modulus and Damping of Soils by
Ac
the Resonant-Column Method,” Dynamic Geotechnical Testing, ASTM STP 654.

91-125.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). (1993). Guidelines for Determining
Design Basis Ground Motions. Vol. 1: Method and Guidelines for Estimating
Earthquake Ground Motion in Eastern North America.
http://peer2.berkeley.edu/ngaeast_wg/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/TR-
102293-V1.pdf

Ferreira, C., de Fonseca, A., and Santos, J.A. (2007). “Comparison of Simultaneous
Bender Elements and Resonant Column Tests on Porto Residual Soil,” Soil Stress-
Strain Behavior: Measurement, Modeling, and Analysis, Solid Mechanics and its
Applications. Eds. Ling, H., Callisto, L., Leshchinsky, D., and Koseki, J. Vol. 146,
523-535.
Finn, W.D. Liam. (1988). “Dynamic Analysis in Geotechnical Engineering,”
t
ip
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II – Recent Advances in Ground
Motion Evaluation. J. Lawrence Von Thun, ed. ASCE Geotechnical Engineering
d cr
Division: New York: 523-591.
te s
GDS Instruments. (2008). GDS Resonant Column: The GDS Resonant Column System
di nu
Handbook. Global Digital Systems Limited.
Gere, R. and Timoshenko, S. (1997). Mechanics of Materials. PWS Publishing Company,
ye a Boston.
op M
Ham, A.; Wang, J.; and Stammer, J. (2012). “Relationships Between Particle Shape
Characteristics and Macroscopic Damping in Dry Sands,” ASCE Journal of
C ted
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 138(8), 1002 – 1011.

Hardin, B.O. (1965). “The Nature of Damping in Sands,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
ot p
Vol. 91, 63-175.

N ce
Hardin, B.O. and Black, W.L. (1968). “Vibration Modulus of Normally Consolidated Clay,”
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the
Ac
American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 94, 353-369.

Jones, D.I.G. (2001). Handbook of Viscoelastic Vibration Damping. Wiley:
Chichester.
Lai, C.G. and Rix, G.J. (1998). Simultaneous Inversion of Rayleigh Phase Velocity and
Attenuation for Near-Surface Site Characterization. National Science Foundation
and U.S. Geological Survey, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
Lazan, B.J. (1968). Damping of Materials and Members in Structural Mechanics.
Pergamon Press: New York.

Kalinski, M.E. and Thummaluru, M.S.R. (2005). “A New Free-Free Resonant Column
Device for Measurement of Gmax and Dmin at Higher Confining Stresses,” ASTM
Geotechnical Testing Journal. Vol. 28(2), 180 – 187.
Kalinski, M.E. and Wallace, A.D. (2011). “Laboratory Measurements of the Dynamic
Properties of Fly Ash,” GeoFrontiers 2011: Advances in Geotechnical Engineering.

J. Han and D. Alzamora, Eds. ASCE GSP No. 211, 1210 – 1216.
t
ip
Karl, L.; Haegeman, W.; Degrande, G.; and Dooms, D. (2008). “Determination of the
Material Damping Ratio with the Bender Element Test,” ASCE Journal of
d cr
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 134(12), 1743 – 1756.
te s
Kim, D.S.; Kweon, G.C.; and Lee, K.H. (1997). “Alternative Method of Determining
di nu
Resilient Modulus of Compacted Subgrade Soils Using Free-Free Resonant
ye a Column Test,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board. Vol. 1577, 62 – 69.
op M
Kramer, S.L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey.
C ted
Mohammad, R. (2008). Dynamic Properties of Compacted Soil Using Resonant Column

with Self-Contained Bender Elements. M.S. thesis, University of Texas at
Arlington.
ot p
Nazarian, S., Yuan, D., and Arellano, M. (2002). “Quality Management of Base and
N ce
Subgrade Materials with Seismic Methods,” Transportation Research Record

1786, Journal of Transportation Research Board. TRB, National Research Council:
Ac
Washington D.C., 3-10.

O’Sullivan, C. (2011). Particulate Discrete Element Modelling. Applied Geotechnics Vol.
4. Spon Press: New York.
Raggett, J.D. (1975). “Estimating Damping of Real Structures,” ASCE Journal of the
Structural Division. Vol.101, 1823-1835.
Ryden, N., Ekdahl, U., and Lindh, P. (2006). “Quality Control of Cement Stabilised Soils
Using Non-Destructive Seismic Tests,” Proceedings of Advanced Testing of Fresh
Cementitious Materials. Lecture 34, August 3-4, Stuttgart, Germany.

Ryden, N. (2009). “Determining the Asphalt Mastercurve from Free-Free Resonant

Testing on Cylindrical Samples,” NTDCE’09, Non-Destructive Testing in Civil
Engineering. Nantes, France, June 30 – July 3, 2009.
http://www.ndt.net/article/ndtce2009/papers/91.pdf
Santamarina, J. C., Klein, K.A., and Moheb, A.F. (2001). Soils and Waves: Particulate
Materials Behavior, Chracterization, and Process Monitoring. Wiley: New York.
t
ip
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1970). Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic
Response Analyses. Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. EERC
d cr
10-10, University of California, Berkeley.
te s
Souto, A., Hartikainen, J. and Ozudogru, K. (1994). “Measurement of Dynamic
di nu
Parameters of Road Pavement Materials by the Bender Element and Resonant
ye a Column Tests,” Geotechnique. Vol. 44(3), 519-526.
Stokoe, K.H., II, and Lodde, P.F. (1978). “Dynamic Response of San Francisco Mud,”
op M
Proceedings of Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE Geotechnical
Engineering Division Specialty Conference. Pasadena, CA, Vol. 2, 940-959.
C ted
Texas Department of Transportation, Materials and Tests Division. (2004). “Test

Method Tex-145-E: Estimating Modulus of Base and Subgrade Materials with
Free-Free Resonant Column (FFRC) Method.” Manual of Testing Procedures.
ot p
Vol. 1, 14-24.
N ce
Toohey, N. (2009). Determination of Strength and Modulus Gain for Lime-Stabilized

Soils. Thesis submitted for partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Masters
Ac
of Science in Engineering – Civil Degree, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO.

Toohey, N.; Mooney, M.; and Ryden, N. (2010). “Quality Management of Stabilized Soil
Construction Using Lab and Field Seismic Testing,” SAGEEP 2010. Keystone,
Colorado, April 11 – 15, 2010.
Ungar, E.E. (1992). “Damping of Panels,” Noise and Vibration Control Engineering:
Principles and Applications. L.L. Beranek, ed. Wiley: New York: 434-475.
Vucetic, M. and Dobry, R. (1991). “Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response,” ASCE
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Vol. 117(1), 89-107.

Wang, J. (2009). “Intrinsic Damping: Modeling Techniques for Engineering Systems,”

ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 135(3), 282-291.
Wang, Y.H.; Cascante, G.; and Santamarina, J.C. (2003). “Resonant Column Testing: The
Inherent Counter EMF Effect,” ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal. Vol. 26(3),
342 – 352.
Whitman, R.V. (1970). “Evaluation of Soil Properties for Site Evaluation and
t
ip
Dynamic Analysis of Nuclear Plants,” Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants.
R.J. Hansen, ed. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
d cr
te s
di nu
ye a
op M
C ted
ot p
N ce
Ac

)LJXUH&DSWLRQ/LVW
Figure Captions
Figure 1: A typical axial free-free resonance (FFR) experimental set-up.

Figure 2: Example FFR data: (a) Five filtered accelerations and the associated Tukey window, (b)
t
Five normalized acceleration frequency spectra and the average normalized frequency
ip
spectrum, and (c) Adjusted average filtered displacement.
d cr
Figure 3: Free-Free configurations: (a) String-Suspended, (b) Horizontal Foam Supported, (c)
te s
Horizontal Foam Covered, (d) Knife-Edge, (e) Vertical Foam Covered, and (f) Vertical Foam
di nu
Supported.
ye a
Figure 4: FFR data from the plastic control cylinder under variable free-free boundary condition
op M
configurations: (a) Emax, (b) Dmin, and (c) estimated εmin.
C ted
Figure 5: Strain-dependent moduli of the AASHTO A-6-7 soil: (a) FFR-measured Gmax and (b) RC-
measured lower bound small strain G(γ).
ot p
Figure 6: Strain-dependent damping ratios of the AASHTO A-6-7 soil: (a) FFR-measured Dmin and
N ce
(b) RC-measured lower bound small strain D(γ).

Ac
Figure 7: Strain magnitudes in the AASHTO A-6-7 soil: (a) FFR-estimated γmin and (b) RC- lower
bound small strain γ.

)LJXUH
Specimen
Longitudinal Accelerometer
Impulse Load
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

)LJXUH
150
100
Acceleration (m/s2)
50
0
-50
Tukey Window
-100
Individual Accelerations
-150
0 1 2 3 4 5
Accepted Manuscript
Time (ms)
(a)
1
0.9
Normalized Amplitude
0.8
Not Copyedited
0.7
Average
0.6 Individual Accelerations
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Frequency (Hz)
-3
(b)
x 10
2.5
Displacement (10-3 mm)
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (ms)
(c)

)LJXUH
Plastic
Foam
Plastic
(a) (b)
Plastic
Foam
Plastic
(c) (d)
Plastic
Plastic
Foam
Foam Foam
(e) (f)
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

)LJXUH
3975
3955
Individual Values
3935
Emax (MPa)
Average Values
3915
3895
3875
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
Accepted Manuscript
Boundary Condition Configuration
(a)
8
7
Not Copyedited
6
Dmin (%)
5
4
3
2
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
(b)
2.90
2.70
2.50
εmin (10-7%)
2.30
2.10
1.90
1.70
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
(c)

)LJXUH
115 115
110 110
105
Lower bound small

105
strain G(γ) (MPa)

100 100
Gmax (MPa)
95 95
90 90
85 85
80 80
75 75
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Specimen Number Specimen Number
Individual Values
(a) Average Values (b)
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

)LJXUH
0.50
17
0.45
15
0.40
13 0.35
Lower bound small

11 0.30
strain D(γ) (%)

9 0.25
Dmin (%)
7 0.20
5 0.15
0.10
3
0.05
1
0.00
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Individual Values
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

)LJXUH
2.80 8.00
2.60
Lower bound γ (10-4%)

Estimated γmin (10-6%)
7.50
2.40
7.00
2.20
2.00 6.50
1.80 6.00
1.60
5.50
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Individual Values
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

7DEOHVGRF[
Tables
Table 1. Specimen Total Mass, Volume, and Density.
Specimen Total Total Total

Mass (kg) Volume Density
(cm3) (Mg/m3)
Soil Specimen 1 1.13 5.39 x102 2.10

Soil Specimen 2 1.15 5.39 x102 2.13
Soil Specimen 3 1.13 5.39 x102 2.10
Soil Specimen 4 1.15 5.39 x102 2.14
Soil Specimen 5 1.15 5.39 x102 2.13
Plastic Cylinder 3.48 2.35x103 1.48
Table 2. C.O.V.s of Emax, Dmin, and εmin from FFR tests on the plastic control cylinder
performed in varying boundary condition configurations.
Data Set C.O.V. C.O.V. C.O.V.
Emax Dmin εmin
Configuration (a) 0.00 1.16x10-1 8.20x10-2

Configuration (b) 0.00 1.07x10-1 1.29x10-1
Configuration (c) 0.00 4.05x10-1 1.51x10-1
Configuration (d) 7.60x10-3 1.28x10-1 9.29x10-2
Configuration (e) 0.00 2.47x10-1 5.32x10-2
Configuration (f) 0.00 2.79x10-1 5.97x10-2
Averages Across 3.13x10-3 8.97x10-2 7.65x10-2
Configurations
Table 3. C.O.V.s of the FFR and lower bound shear strain RC data from the five soil
specimens.
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

Data Set C.O.V. C.O.V. C.O.V. C.O.V. C.O.V. C.O.V.

Gmax G(γ) Dmin D(γ) γmin γ
(from (from (from (from RC) (from (from RC)
FFR) RC) FFR) FFR)
Specimen 8.16x10-3 8.17x10-3 3.67x10-1 3.78x10-1 1.16x10-1 5.01x10-2

(1)
Specimen 1.48x10-2 1.40x10-2 2.49x10-1 2.19x10-1 3.64x10-2 3.78x10-2
(2)
Specimen 1.28x10-2 3.49x10-3 1.51x10-1 8.96x10-2 7.60x10-2 2.26x10-2
(3)
Specimen 1.39x10-2 6.58x10-3 2.01x10-1 9.14x10-2 7.85x10-2 2.81x10-3
(4)
Specimen 5.88x10-3 1.05x10-2 1.28x10-1 1.48x10-1 9.20x10-2 7.11x10-3
(5)
Averages 1.13x10-1 3.38x10-2 3.07x10-1 3.98x10-1 7.10x10-2 8.79x10-2
Across
Specimens
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

Schaeffer2013 Dynamic Modulus and Damping Ratio Measurements From Free-Free

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Schaeffer2013 Dynamic Modulus and Damping Ratio Measurements From Free-Free

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.

Submitted October 22, 2012; accepted April 8, 2013;

Dynamic Modulus and Damping Ratio Measurements from Free-Free

evaluate the consistency of the resulting strain-dependent modulus and damping

involved in approximating nonlinear, microstructural sources of energy losses with

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

extremely important for mechanistic dynamic geotechnical engineering design (e.g.,

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

frequencies and corresponding moduli of cylindrical concrete specimens (e.g., Nazarian

studies involving laboratory FFR tests document cylindrical free-free specimens

boundary condition configurations influence corresponding calculated Gmax and Dmin is

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

insight as to whether or not axial FFR procedures may be used to provide

commercial manufacturer (GDS Instruments 2008).

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

where F is a nonuniform strain correction factor equal to 0.80, C is a device-specific

FFR Laboratory Testing Procedures

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

using a Drnevich-type free-free RC apparatus, which, like the fixed-free RC procedures

impacts in the manner described by Toohey (2009).

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

one-dimensional compressional wave propogation theory:

Emax U vc 2 U (2Lfc )2 (3)

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

between the two testing procedures.

applied at both integrations to remove unphysical displacement drifts inherent in

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J min H min  XH min (6)

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

mode shapes do not need to be considered, as the presence of alternate modes of

Experimental Studies and Data Analysis

inhomogeneities or anisotropic characteristics.

(a) String-Suspended: The specimen is suspended horizontally from above by

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

layer of foam padding on a rigid flat surface (Figure 3f)

deviations normalized by corresponding arithmetic means) of the FFR test

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

configuration by an order of magnitude indicates that the specific FFR boundary

Comparative Synthesis of Data from FFR and RC Testing Procedures

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

discussed, the selection of a specific free-free boundary condition configuration does

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

average Gmax values of Specimens 3 and 4 are reduced.

increased. These recommendations appear contradictory; however, it is not necessarily

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

fundamental differences in the quantification of elastic and dissipative properties. The

J min H min XH min (6)