NR-SIR 82-2568

ii i iifflliiiii ill ill ill inmi I a 1 1 lot asito? mtribution to the ASTM

Resonant Column Round Robin

Testing Program

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

Geotechnical Engineering Group

Structures Division

Washington, DC 20234

August 1982

Issued December 1982

—uc100

,lbb

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

82-2568

1982

NBSIR 82-2568

CONTRIBUTION TO THE ASTM

RESONANT COLUMN ROUND ROBIN

TESTING PROGRAM

Rational bureau v &F STANDARDS

ilBRARY DEC 15

OnctV

mi

CXCjC -«_eV

G. d ioo

%-^-2.£Lp?

I Q

Riley M. Chung

Felix Y. Yokel

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

Geotechnical Engineering Group

Structures Division

Washington, DC 20234

August 1 982

Issued December 1982

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

ABSTRACT

Results from National Bureau of Standards (NBS) resonant column tests to

determine shear moduli and damping ratios for Monterey No.. 0 sand are presented to supplement the ASTM resonant column round robin program.

In addition to testing solid specimens as specified for the initial ASTM

round robin program, hollow cylindrical specimens were tested to provide

an independent check on the validity of the results in shear modulus and

damping evaluations.

The NBS test data on shear moduli are consistently lower than the average

values obtained from the initial round robin program, but they are within

the range of the initial round robin test data. It is believed that, at

least in part, the difference between the NBS and the round robin data

was caused by the fact the NBS specimens had a lower average relative

density which was also closer to 6Q percent relative density specified

for the round robin tests. Damping ratios obtained by NBS fit rather

closely the curve obtained from the initial round robin program.

No significant difference was found between the maximum shear moduli and

damping ratios obtained from the testing of solid specimens and hollow

cylindrical specimens.

Keywords: Damping; resonant column; round robin tests; shear; shear

modulus; soil dynamics; test methods; torsional vibrations

NOTATION

Relative density

Damping ratio (expressed as a percent of the

critical damping of the system)

Void ratio

Shear modulus

Maximum shear modulus determined at very small

average shear strain amplitude [<_ 10" 3 percent)

Confining pressure (confining stress)

Average shear strain

Dry unit weight of the specimen

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT fit

NOTATION iv

1. Introduction 1

2. Test Equipment 2

3. Test Material 2

4. Test Procedures 2

5. Test Program 4

6. Test Results 4

7. Discussion 6

8. Conclusions 7 9. References 7

APPENDIX A Test Procedure of Initial ASTM Resonant Column

Round Robin Testing Program A-l

APPENDIX B Draft Report of the Initial ASTM Resonant Column

Round Robin Testing Program B-l

APPENDIX C Tabulated Test Data from the NBS Resonant Column

Pilot Test Program C-l

1. INTRODUCTION

In 1978, ASTM Subcommittee 18.09, Soil Dynamics, under the coordination

of Professor V. P. Drnevich of the University of Kentucky, initiated a round robin program for determining the dynamic shear modulus and the

damping ratio of Monterey No. 0 sands by the resonant column testing

technique. In the round robin program, the requirements were set for testing,

including the type of material used, type and dimensional requirements of

the test specimen, specimen density and method of specimen preparation,

procedures for specimen set-up in the testing chamber, and the procedures

for determining the dynamic properties.

The geotechnical engineering laboratory at the National Bureau of Standards

(NBS) acquired the resonant column testing device in 1980 and had it in

operation early in 1981. As part of the NBS pilot testing program, it was decided to follow the procedures specified in the ASTM round robin program

in order to determine whether the NBS test results are comparable with available round robin test results. Typical test data were forwarded to Professor

Drnevich for review. As the result. Professor Drnevich requested NBS to

submit a report so that the NBS data can be included in the final report on the ASTM round robin program. This report contains the test data produced

by NBS to supplement the ASTM resonant column round robin program, as well

as a discussion of the test procedures used and results obtained. In addition to the tests specified in the round robin program, NBS also performed

tests on specimens with different dimensional characteristics (hollow cylinders) to provide an independent check on the validity of the results in

shear modulus and damping characteri sties evaluations. These test results

are also included and discussed in this report.

The body of the report contains a discussion of test results and procedures,

as well as plots of the test results. Appendix A contains the test procedure

specified initially for the round robin test program. Appendix B contains a draft report by Professor Drnevich on the initial round robin program which

includes nine sets of test data and was issued in January 1979. Appendix C

contains a tabulation of the NBS test data.

1
2.

TEST EQUIPMENT

The NBS resonant column device is a Drnevich-type apparatus with the

specimen fixed at the base and excitation forces applied to the top of the

specimen. Two types of specimens were used in testing; one type is a solid

specimen, 71.0 mm + 0.2 mm in diameter and 143.2 mm + 0.1 mm in height

(refer to p. A9 in Appendix A) and the other type is a hollow cylindrical

specimen with an inner diameter of 35.2 mm + 0.1 mm, an outer diameter of

71.0 mm + 0.2 mm and a height of 76.4 mm + 0.5 mm. The round robin program

specified the use of solid specimens. The hollow specimen data were added

since they independently corroborate the solid specimen data and also provide

valuable information as to whether the laboratory determined values of shear

modulus and damping would be affected by the type of specimens used in the

eval uati on

.

3. TEST MATERIAL

Monterey No. 0 sand was used. A particle size distribution curve and the

selected index properties of the Monterey No. 0 sand, obtained by Mulilis,

et al. , (1

)—^are shown in figure 1 and table 1, respecti vely . The sand is a commercially available washed uniform fine to medium beach sand of a group

symbol "SP" using the unified soil classification system (2), composed of

quartz and feldspar particles. The maximum and minimum dry unit weight

determinations were performed in accordance with the ASTM test method (3)

and Kolbuszewski ' s method (4), respectively.

4. TEST PROCEDURES

Oven-dried materials were used in the specimen preparation and all the

specimens were prepared to a relative density of approximately 60 percent

using a dry tapping method. The amount of material required to fill a known

volume was divided into five equal parts. The first part of the material

was poured into a funnel which is resting on the bottom platen and then

the funnel was raised slowly to allow the material to flow into a space

confined by a rubber membrane, which is tightly backed up against a split

]_/ Numbers in parentheses are literature references in Section 9.

2
mold by vacuum, to form the first layer. Slight tapping on the wall of

the split mold was required to reach the calibrated layer thickness which

was calculated using Ladd's method (5). Subsequent parts of the weighed

material were poured into the same funnel with its bottom resting on top

of the layer just being constructed. By dividing the total weight of the

specimen into five parts and constructing the specimen in a sequence of

five layers, a uniform density distribution throughout the height of the

specimen is achieved (5).

After the total weighed material was placed in the split mold, the top

platten was put into place and the rubber membrane(s) adjusted around the

top platen. The vacuum was then removed from the split mold and a suction

of 10 kPa was applied through the bottom platten to hold the specimen in

place. The split mold was then removed from the specimen while the suction

was maintained in the specimen.

The above described procedure deviates in two respects from the procedure

used in the initial round robin tests: (a) specimen density was controlled

in five separate layers rather than raining in the material continuously.

The NBS procedure is believed to produce a better control of the uniformity

of the specimen, (b) the suction applied to the specimen was 10 kPa rather

than the 34.5 kPa used in the initial tests. The suction was reduced in

order to minimize the disturbance of the specimen fabric, which was a parameter investigated in the NBS tests.

Actual dimensions of the prepared specimen were measured with the suction

applied to the specimen. The length of the specimen was determined at two

diametrically opposite positions and averaged. The diameters were measured

at two elevations and at 90° displacement between the directions of the

measurements and averaged . The actual diameter of the specimen is the

above measured average value subtracting twice the average membrane thickness. Dry unit weight of the specimen can then be calculated using the

actual dimensions of the prepared specimen.

After complete assembly of the apparatus around the top platten, a plexiglass cylinder was placed around the assembly and was enclosed by a top

3
plate in which all the transducers for input driving force and output

accelerometer and displacement measurements are housed. A pressure of

10 kPa was then applied in the chamber and the suction within the specimen

was slowly released so that the specimen was completely supported by a positive chamber (confining) pressure of 10 kPa. At each stage while the

specimen was under a confining pressure of 10 kPa, regardless whether this

pressure differential was due to suction within the specimen or confining

pressure in the test chamber, a small amplitude torsional shake-down test

-4

with the average shear strain amplitude of about 5 x 10 percent was conducted to determine the system response. The tests were also used to

detect any specimen disturbance due to the assembling operation of the

test set-up by observing the Linear Variable Differential Transformer

(LVDT) readings which measured the change in specimen height. The confining

pressure was then brought up to the desired magnitude for testing.

5. TEST PROGRAM

Summaries of the twelve tests conducted are given in table 2. Maximum

shear modulus determinations were conducted for a range of confining pressures

from 10 kPa to 300 kPa by applying low amplitude torsional vibrations with

_3

average shear strains of less than 10 percent to the specimen. Large

strain testing was also conducted at confining pressures of 50 kPa and 300

kPa, as specified in the initial round robin program. A maximum amplitude

of average shear strain amplitude of about 4 x 10 percent was obtained

using this resonant column apparatus.

6. TEST RESULTS

3

The mean dry unit weight of the tested specimens was 1578 kg/m with

3

a standard deviation of 4.48 kg/m . This unit weight is equivalent to a void ratio of 0.675 and a relative density of approximately 60.2 percent.

3

The range of unit weights for the tested specimens varied from 1573 kg/m

3

to 1585 kg/m , as indicated in table 2.

Test results are presented in figures 2 through 7, following the same format

of presentation as in the draft ASTM report in Appendix B. Test data in a tabulated form are also included in Appendix C. Figure 2 shows the maximum

4
shear modulus as a function of confining pressure. The dashed lines

given in the figure are the boundaries for the upper and lower standard

error of estimate from the initial round robin program which were obtained

by least square best fit calculations which resulted in a coefficient of

correlation of 0.93. Test data points obtained from solid specimen testing

are shown with solid symbols. Open symbols are used for data points from

the hollow cylindrical specimen testing. Figure 2 indicates that the NBS

test data are slightly below the line giving the lower standard error of

estimate; however, they are still well within the range of the data points

submitted to the round robin program (refer to figure B1 in Appendix B).

Test results on shear modulus vs. shear strain amplitude are shown in

figures 3 and 4 for confining pressures of 50 kPa and 300 kPa, respectively.

Again, the upper and lower standard error of estimate and least square

best fit curves from the initial round robin program are reproduced in both

figures to provide a means to qualitatively evaluate the NBS test data.

For the case of confining pressure of 50 kPa, the NBS test data are right

on the lower curve corresponding to the lower standard error of estimate

while the data points from the 300 kPa confining pressure testing are below

the lower limit. Larger scatter of test data is also observed from the

specimen testing under the higher confining pressure. However, the test

data are well within the spread of actual data points used to construct

the least square best fit curves (refer to figures B2 and B3).

Damping ratios calculated for the specimen tested at very small average

_ o shear strain amplitudes (average shear strains of 10 percent or less) are plotted in figure 5 as a function of confining pressure. The average

(solid line) and the average + one standard deviation (broken lines) for

the data points in the initial round robin program (refer to figure B7) are also shown in the figure. It should be noted that the data points used

for the plot of figure B7 are not the actual points reported, but are calculated from least squares best fit lines for damping vs. average shear

strain amplitude for the data submitted by the participating laboratories.

This approach, according to Professor Drnevich, is necessary because accurate measurement of damping is extremely difficult when the magnitude of

the damping ratio is less than one percent. The NBS test data presented

in figure 5 also show considerable scatter. Although the maximum shear

5
moduli determinations, i.n the NBS testing program consistently yielded

lower values than those obtained from the initial round robin program as indicated by figure 2, the damping ratio measurements fall between the

average line and the average - one standard deviation line for the initial

round robin tests.

Damping ratios vs. shear strain amplitudes are plotted in figures 6 and

7 for confining pressures of 50 kPa and 300 kPa, respectively. The least

square best fit line and the standard error of estimate lines from the

initial round robin program (refer to figures B8 and B9) are also shown in

both figures. Once again, the values of damping ratios are following more

or less the curves of least square best fit up to a magnitude of average

-2

shear strain of about 10 percent beyond which the NBS test data show

consistently slightly higher values for damping ratios.

7. DISCUSSION

At least in part, the generally lower values of maximum shear modulus in

the NBS test data, when compared to the initial round robin tests can be

attributed to the fact that in the NBS tests the specimen dry unit weights

in general were lower than those used in the initial round robin program.

In the round robin program, an average specimen dry unit weight of 1588

3 3 kg/m was calculated, which is 10 kg/m higher than the average dry unit

weight of the NBS specimens. One reason for this difference in unit weight

is that the NBS test specimens were subjected to a suction of 10 kPa while

in the initial round robin program a suction of 34.5 kPa was used. This

suction tended to cause a greater reduction in volume. Note that the

average relative density of the NBS specimens was closer to the specified

60 percent than that of the round robin tests.

Maximum shear moduli, determined from the hollow cylindrical specimens

appear to be slightly smaller than those determined from the solid specimens,

as indicated by the test results presented in figure 2. Damping ratios,

determined from the testing of hollow cylindrical specimens at these small

average shear strain amplitudes, appear to be slightly higher than those

from solid specimen testing. Additional study is required to determine if

these findings are statistically significant because of the scatter of the

data on damping ratios at small strains.

6
8. CONCLUSIONS

Several conclusions can be drawn from the NBS pilot testing program:

(a) The NBS test data on shear modulus values are consistently lower than

the average values obtained from the initial round robin program; however,

they are within the range of the initial round robin test data. At least

in part, this difference may be caused by the fact that the average dry

unit weight of the NBS test specimens was lower than that of the initial

round robin specimens and closer to the specified 60 percent relative

densi ty

.

(b) The NBS damping measurements closely fit the curve obtained using the

least squares best fit method on the test data in the initial round robin

program.

(c) There was no significant difference between the shear moduli obtained

from the testing of two different types of specimens: solid cylinders and

hollow cylinders, even though the shear modulus of the hollow specimens

was slightly lower, and the damping ratio slightly higher at small strains

These preliminary findings need to be further evaluated by additional

testing.

9. REFERENCES

1. Mulilis, J.P., Chan, C.K., and Seed, H.B. (1975), "The Effects of

Method of Sample Preparation on the Cyclic Stress-Strain Behavior of

Sands," Report No. EERC 75-18, EERC, U.C. Berkeley, July

2. ASTM D2487-69, "Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes,"

Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 19, Soil and Rock; Building Stones

3. ASTM D2049-69, "Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils," Annual Book

of ASTM Standards, Part 19, Soil and Rock; Building Stones.

4. Kolbuszewski (1948), "General Investigation of the Fundamental Factors

Controlling Loose Packing of Sands," Proc. Second fnt. Conf. Soil

Mech. and Found. Eng., Rotterdam, Vol . 7, pp. 47-49.

5. Ladd, R.S. (1978), "Preparing Test Specimen Using Under Compaction,"

Geot. Testing Journal, ASTM Vol. 1, No. 1, March pp. 16-23.

7
TABLE 1: Index Properties for Monterey No. 0 Sand

Mulilis et al . (1975)

Unified Soil Classification System Group Symbol

Mean Specific Gravity

Particle Size Distribution Data

D 50’ mml/

SP

2.65

0.36

0.9

Dry Unit Weight Data

Maximum, kg/m3

3

Minimum, kg/m

1.5

1 ,693.15

1 ,430.45

]_/ D 5q , mean grain size

y C

c = (D 30 ) 2 /(D

60

X D 10 )

» coefficient of curvature

3/ c = Dr A/D in i coefficient of uniformity — U 60 1U

8
TABLE 2: Summary of Resonant Column Pilot Test Program

Test Procedures

Sample No. Symbol

Specimen

Type

Dry

Uni t Weight

Relative

Density

D

r

Void

Ratio

e

Gmax Determination

G vsat

a

3 =

kg/m3 percent kPa

M- 101 0 hollow

cylindr.

1,579 60.7 0.674 X

-

M-103 o hollow

cyl indr.

1,585 62.9 0.668 X

-

M-104 A hollow

cyl indr.

1,573 58.5 0.680 - 50

M-106 A solid 1,577 60.0 0.676 - j 50

M-107 a solid 1,573 58.5 0.680 X 50

M-109 hollow

cylindr.

1,575 59.3 0.678 X 300

M- 110 <i hollow

cyl indr.

1,583 62.2 0.670 - 300

M- 111 D> hollow

cyl indr.

1,578 60.4 0.675 - 300

M- 113 © hollow

cyl indr.

1,579 60.7 0.674 - 50

M- 114 solid 1,573 58.5 0.680 - 50

M- 117 • solid 1,573 58.5 0.680 X 300

M- 118 sol id 1,584 62.6 0.668 - 300

9
GRAVEL SAND

COARSE P HNE COARSE | MEDIUM 1 FINE SILT OR CLAY

C9

>-

CO

CDgo

GO

OCEUJ

Q_

Diameter UN,FIED S0IL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Figure l Grain size distribution of Monterey No. 0 sand

10
T T" I

HOLLOW

CYLINDRICAL SOLID SPECIMEN SPECIMEN

CO a.X

coE

ca

in

inZ

x

O M-101 M-107 O M-103 • M-117

M-109

Upper and lower standard error of estimate from initial round robin test program, 1/79

10 — i i i i _i_ i—i j_L i ' iii

10 100

CONFINING PRESSURE, a 3 (kPa)

Figure 2 Maximum shear modulus vs. confining pressure

1 1 1

1 1 i.l 1000

ll
Figure 3 Shear modulus vs. shear strain amplitude, confining

pressure at 50 kPa

12
Figure 4 Shear modulus vs. shear strain amplitude, confining

pressure at 300 kPa

13
DAMPING

RATIO,

A

(percent)

10 100 1000

CONFINING STRESS, o

'2 (kPa)

Figure 5 Damping ratio vs . _3 and less than 10

confining

percent

stress at. shear strain at

14
SHEAR STRAIN AMPLITUDE, 7, (percent)

Figure 6 Damping ratio vs. shear strain amplitude, confining

pressure at 50 kPa

15
Figure 7 Damping ratio vs. shear strain amplitude, confining

pressure at 300 kPa

16
APPENDIX A

Test Procedure

of

Initial ASTM Resonant Column Round Robin Testing Program

I university or Kentucky

Department of Civil fiidiiioe

Le:: 1 1 id Lot i r Ken tucks 40 j()

May 1978

So i 1 ASTM

D ear i

Ue are delighted to have your participation in Resonant Column Testing Prodram. Enclosed arc? details of the p rod raifi and some references

on the resonant column test in si. The doals of the prod ram center around

the possibility of standardising the test eau ip merit cal i bra Lion f me L hod

of testindf and method of d3ta reduction. The paper by Drnevichf Hardin f and Shippy (enclosed) is an effort toward this s tanda rdi zat i on

It would be most helpful to ASTM and those involved with the resonant

column testing if you evaluated this paper by usind it as a riuide durind this test program.

A second paper ( report by Drnevich to UESf Soil Mechanics Series No.

23) is also enclosed. It basically includes the first paper arid skives

much more detail > data sheetsF an example f etc.

If you do not have Monterey No. 0 sand at the present time* you may

obtain some by contact ind.

Dr. Clarence Chan

Univ. of California at Berkeley

Richmond Field Station

1301 S. 46th Street

Richmond f CA 94804

(415) 231-9406

He will send you a 100 pound bad of the sand by overland freidht. You

will have to pay the freidht chardes.

It would be most desireable to perform the tests in a few weeks arid

return the results to us by early June so that at least a preliminary

report can be made to the Soil Dynamics Committee at the ASTM meetindF

D-18.09f in late June. As a means of helpind us plan our to -a r t r complete the attached sheet immediately and return it to us.

If you wish a card deck of the computer prodram for data reductioriF

dive me a calif and we'll send you one. If you wish* we can run your

data throudh the prod ram here. Be sure to send us the completed . data sheets as requested in the procedure.

A-l
Thanks a^ain for your willingness to part icipate . Don 7 to call if you have any Questions or problems*

Sincerely

Vincent F' . Iirnevieh

hesi tat

Enclosures
RESONANT COLUMN Trial IN G PROGRAM

(II! I LINE

Number of tests! Two (.2) tests are proposed for this program*

Test Materiali Monterey No. 0 Sand

Monterey Sand Company

S a

1

1 d C ityr (California

Sand Sradationt t'so = 0.36mm

Density limits* (determined by C.K. Chan ( 1 ) f refer to

Figure 1) em^ =0.85r X in i n = 1430.45 Kg/m 5 (09.3 pcf

)

e rr4 { n

~ 0 .

5

6 » y iii a : t = 1693.15 K g

/

iii 5 (105.7 pcf ) Sample Preparation Parameters:

Sample preparation: See attachment for procedure.

Specimen: Uniform circular cross section with ends

perpendicular to the an is of the specimen.

Sample Diameter! Minimum diameter of 33mm (1.3in).

Height to diameter ratio! Not less than 2 nor more

than 7

.

Initial specimen density! Doth tests uil] be prepared dry to 60 7. relative density.

Testing Parameters!

- 4- Strain range! 10 V. to the largest for the apparatus.

Saturation! No saturation^ both tests will be run dry.

Confining stress! Doth tests will be applying confining

stresses of 50 t 100 » 150 r and 300 KPa. See attached

page for test procedure.

Stabizat ion Time! Fifteen minutes after application of

the load is required.
frocfidurf: tor f-rfrar] nr, inr ktconsi iiiiied

COARSi: -CiKAINCD COIL r.r-FClMRN (SAND)

INTRODUCT'ION

This method of preparing coarse-Srained specimens for resonant,

column testing incorporates procedures for obtaining specimens

with uniforni density throughout and with minimum tendency for

particle segregation.

Specimens can be prepared in a mold as shown in Figure 2. Most samples

prepared in a mold at relative densities above about 30% percent will

have sufficient strength to allow them to be transported and set up

in the resonant column apparatus without any meaningful change, in their

dry unit weight* The sample should be placed in a rubber membrane

lined mold that is placed on the resonant, column bottom platen. A vacuum

should be applied through the mold to draw the membrane to the mold

throughout the placement process.

PROCEDURE

1. Assemble and check out all the necessary apparatus to be used in

preparing the test specimen. Determine the average thickness of the

membrane by measuring it at two diametrically opposed postions near both

ends and average the four values. Measure the mold by determining the

I.D. (taking into account the membrane thickness) arid height, (accounting

for the two platens). Calculate the volume based on these measurements.

2. Determine the total required dry weight of the material as follows!

o c5 1 » u f i, 1 1 tf ruuui reu u r ^ ta i u r u i 1 u tr t, j. 1 1 :rs r rug idin j. ^ 1 j / / j *t • \ =* / •*» (98.47 pcf)> assuming 60% relative density. With the total known

volume of the sample from step If the total required dry weight, can be

obtained for each test.

w<r = Hg <v)

Whe re

0 =

Total dry weight, of the material

Required dry unit weight, of the test material

Final volume of the placed material before

pressurizing
3. Ueidh out the? proper amount of material as determined in step 2.

4. A sr-eci;il cylinder with a *10 sieve attached to one end as shown

in fidure 2a is placed into the mold' which has the rubber membrane

and bottom platen attached (fidure 2b). A vacuum is connected to the

mold arid retained until the process is complete. Tire cylinder is filled

with -the jjeidhed sand from step 1 while it sits on the bottom platen.

Then the cylinder is slowly raised* and the mold is tapped as the sand

f^ows out. Several trials may be necessary to determine the amount

of tappind reoui red to achieve 60% relative density uniformly throughout the specimen. See fidure 2 for the required dimensions arid fidure

3 for the calculations to determine the correct cylinder heidht and

diameteM' in accordance with the test reoui remei its

5. When the total material is placed in the mold? the top platen should

be put into placer and the rubber membrane adjusted around the platen.

If the specimen was constructed outside the apparatus* it is placed into the resonant column apparatus with vacuum still attached to the mold.

When in place* remove the vacuum oh the mold and attach a vacuum of

34 «

5

—k£la (5.0 ps i ) to the bottom platen. (If no vacuum regulator exists

for the vacuum system* apply a full vacuum arid note it on the data sheet.

Step 10 should be shipped for this case.) The mold can then be removed

from the specimen when the vacuum has been obtained in the specimen.

Extreme caution should be used to prevent disturbance.

6. Measure the dimensions of the specimen. Measure the lendth at two

diametrically opposed portions and average them. Measure the diameters

at three elevations arid at 90° orientations ( if Pi- tape is not used)

and avera.de these. Subtract twice the avera.de membrane thickness from

the averade diameter to det the net specimen diameter.

7. Calculate the dry density of the specimen usind the weidht of the

sand placed and the dimensions determined in step 6 above. This dry

density is the one to be reported for the test.

8. Complete the assembly fo the apparatus.

9. Apply a cell pressure of 15.5 kPa (2.25 psi).

10. Reduce the vacuum to the pore space from 34.5 kPa (5 psi) to 17.24

kPa (2.5 psi ) Then increase the cell pressure by 17.24 kPa (2.5 psi).

vacuum and increase the cell pressure to 50 kPa (7.25 psi) .

*

A5

*\

11 Remove the
TEST PROCEDURE FOR THE RESONANT COIJJMN LEST

1

1

I NTRODUCT I ON

Two* a 1 moist identical* tests will be pe r f n lined . Rath tests will utilise i • .1 1 ?

1 1 i. c a 1 dr y s p e c i m en s * p r e p a r e d a n::or d ind t o t h e i 1

s L r u

c

t :i o r i s of

the previous section. Cortf mind pressures will be applied in seven stages

psi ) . Both tests will involve vibratind the specimen * at each stade

startind at 50 kPa (7.20 psi ) . For the first specimen* vibration at each

stade will be applied such that the modulus and dampind* as a function

of strain .amplitude* can he determined. For the second specimen durind the stades associated with ascend ind corifinind si res sc* s (except for

300 kPa)* only low amplitude vibrations (strain amplitudes less than.

0.001%) will be applied. Hence for both specimens* modulus and dampind

versus strain amplitude will be determined at the lardest pressure and

for each stade durind descendind pressures. For' the first specimen*

these data will also be obtained for the stades of ascondind pressure.

For the second specimen* only tire modulus and damp i rid at strains less

than 0.001% will be (obtained for the first three stades.

1. Allow a stabilization time of 15 minutes after apply ind the coni' ini rid stress,

2. Apply a low amplitude vibration and adjust the frewuency of the

resonance, (See Urnpvich* Hardin* and Shippy (enclosed) for the definition of resonance). Strain amplitudes must be kept below 0.001%

f o i' t h i s s t e p . E e c o r d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e data, (Enel o s e d d a t a s It e e t s mas be used to record this information),

5* For those stades where the modulus end dampind are to be determined versus strain amplitude* the amplitude of vibration is increased

by approximately 50% ( increasind tire power to the oscillator by 50%

will a c <_ o m r- 1 i. s h th is). Adjust the f r

e

o u e n

c

-a for re s o r ian c e a n d r e c o r

d

the appropriate data. Continue increasind the amplitude of vibration

by 50 % of the previous value* adjust ind the frequency for resort a nee*

and record ind the data until the maximum amplitude capability of the

apparatus is readied. The time at which each readind is taken should be

recorded* and the time between readings should be kept relatively con- * stant, A time interval between read ind s of two minul.es is recommended , After' vibration at hidh amp 1 i tubes * vibrate at low amplitude

DETAILS OF TESTING PROCEDURE FOR EACH PRESSURE STAGE
(strains less than 0.001%) » Adjust, the frequency for resonance arid

record the data. Damping in ay he measured by the magi i i f i ca ti on factor

method (analytical ) » or the amplitude decay method. or both. It may

be desirable to use the magnification factor metliod th roug bout, . arid

u s e the a m p i t u d e d o c a y m e t, l

i

a d o n c e . s a y a t, s t rains of 0.01%. as

a check on the magnification factor metliod.

HUT AILS OF DATA REDUCTION AND PRESENTATION

Since one of the purposes of this program is to evaluate the paper by

Drnevich. Hardin* and Shippy as a r-otent,ail ASTM standard, it, is asked

th a l, the data be reduced using procedures diven in the paper. E: a c h

laboratory may also wish to reduce the data according to their own

established procedures. To aid those who may wish to use the computer

pins ram. a card deck, will be sent, upon request. In the event that access to a computer (or the pros ram) is no t, co n van i en t, . copies of the

completed Apparatus arid Specimen Info r m a t :i. n n KiTeet, s . Data Sheets*

and Intermediate, Cal culation' Sheets may be sent to Vincen t Drnevich

at the Univeristy of Kentucky where they will he run free of charge.

Reduced data are to be plotted on the enclosed sheets and returned

with copies of the Apparatus and Specimen Information Sheets r Data

Sheets. 1 1

1

tef mediate Calculations Sheets, and Final Calculations Sheets

for a ] ]. t ! 1 e d a t a o b twined.

On the lod-lod par/ur provided, plot the shear modulus obtained at

strains less than 0 . 001 % (from the first, data of each stage) versus

i he confining stress. Distinguish between specimen 1 and specimen 2 . { and between the data obtained during ascending pressure and those during descending pressure. (The unlabelled log-log paper may be used

t o a i d i. n plot t, i n g o n t, h e 1 a belled p a p e r ) .

For each stage where m odulus and *dainp i ng ) a i e obtained as a function of

a 1 1 ' a i 1 1 a

m

p lit ude • p .1 o t t he results on the sheets pr o v i d e d D e s u i'

e

to label each curve, identifying the specimen number, confining stress,

and whether on ascending or descending pressure (for specimen one).

(Unlabel led semi-log paper may be to aid in plotting points).
100

FIGURE A-l

o

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

• A-d

GRAIN

SIZE

(mm)
FICURF. A-Z

Height

(2 to 7

B)

Inside Diameter of

Hold (Dm)- Minimum 33 mm (1.3 in)

»

‘\

Bottom Platen With Porous

Stone
FIGURE A-3

Spl i t

yacuum Connection

Bottom

Platen

TYPICAL SPLIT MOLD

Sample In Place With

Mold Removed

Assume a 15% area ratio for cylinder wall thickness.

2 _ 2

Area Ratio = ^oc ” ®ic

'1 c X 100% < 15%

Therefore, D^ c > 0.93 Doc And the volume of the cylinder must be equal to or greater than the mold volume.

Dm2 H*. So, Hc

«= — j uic

Assume an extra 20% for Hc to assure enough cylinder

height.

EXAMPLE:

Mold I. D. = 2", Mold Height = 4", Cylinder 0. D. = 1.9"

Check the Cylinder 0. D. to Mold I. D. = 1.05, O.K.

Next Check the Area Ratio: ic 0.93 D,oc Therefore, the smallest possible Di c = 1.77"

Assuming the I. D. found to be used is equal to 1.80",

Adding

-• «c -

20%,

^

Hc = 5.93" for the cylinder height

o

fC3

0. K.

. A-10
F rom

Tel . No.

Toi Dr. Vine lent P. Drnevich

Dept, of Civil Engineering

214 Ande r son Ha 1 1 ;

IJ n ivers i t y of Kent u ck

y

Le;:indton» Ky» 40506

We have received all your materials.

We have sufficient Monterey No. 0 sand on hand.

We anticipate that testind will bedin » 1978 and will be

completed by t 1978. Results will be to you by »

1978.

We would like to have a card deck of the computer prodram sent

to us .

S i dned

Date

'\ A-ll
u

I he following incite rial is enclosed tor the resonant column

robin* tesl.ii cl program!

1 , Testing P r o g i a m fJ u 1. 1 ine*

<3 ) lest Material

b) Samples Preparation Parameters

c ) Testing Parameters

* round

2.

Data Sheets l a) Spec i titer i data

t.O Resonant Column Test Sheet

c) Intermediate Calculations Sheet

d ) F i r i a 1 Cal cu 1 a t i u n s S h e e

t

d) Amplitude Decay Data Sheet

3. Test Result Reporting Forms (graphs).

a ) S h e a i' M o d u 1 us vs Sh e a r S t r <? i n b) Hysteretic Damping vs Shear Strain

c) Maximum Shear Modulus vs effective Normal Stress

d) Five-cycle Senii-log Paper

4 . Drnevichr U.P.» 'The Resonant Column Test* Report to the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers* Contract No. DACU 39 -77-m- 1 687 * September

1977.

5. Drnevichr M.P.r ’Resonant Column Testing-Problems and Solutions *

University of Kentucky r Lexington* Kentucky.

6. Drnevichr U.P.* Hardinr D.O.* and Shippy* D.J.t * Modulus and

Damping of Soils by the Resonant Column Method* r Paper submitted . to the ASTM Symposium on Dynamic Soil and Rock Testing in the Field

and Laboratory for Seismic Studies » 1977 Annual Meeting of ASTM*

De over » J u n e * 1977.

If additional information is needed * please contact me at!

Dr. 0 indent P. Drnevich

Civil Engineer i n g D e p a r t. m e n t University of Kentucky

Lexington* Kentucky 40506

(606) 257-1958

A-i 2
REFERENCES - THE FESONANT COLUMN TEST DRNEVICH, OCT. '78

1. Drnevich, V. P. , "Resonant Column - Problems and

Solutions," ASTM Special Technical Publication, STP 654,

October, 1978.

2- Drnevich, V.F. /'Resonant Column Test," Misc. Paper

S-78-6, U.S. Army Corps or Engineers, Waterways

Experiment Station Contract No. C A C W 3 S - 7 7— M- 1 687, August,

1978, 63 pages.

3. Drnevich, V.F., Hardin, B.O., and Shippy, D . J . , " do du lus

and Damping cf Soils by the Resonant Column Method," ASTM

Special Technical Publication STP 654, October, 1978.

4. Hall, J.R., Jr., and Richart, F.E., Jr ., "Dissipation of

Elastic Wave Energy in Granular Soils," J. of the Soil

Mechanics and foundations Civ., ASCE, Vol. 89, No. Si-16,

Proc. Paper 3698, November, 1963, pp. 27-56.

5. Hardin, Bobby 0., "The Nature of Damping in Sand,"

Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Div., ASCE,

Vol. 91, No. SMI, Proc. Paper 4206, January, 1965, pp.

63-97.

6. Hardin, Bobby 0. , "Suggested Methods of Test for Shear

Modulus and Damping of Sells by the Resonant Column,"

ASTM Special Technical Publication, STP 479, 1970, pp.

516-529.

7. Hardin, B.O., and Scott, G. D. , "Generalized Kelvin-Voigt

Used in Soil Dynamics Study," Journal of the Engineering

Mechanics Div., ASCE, Vol. 92, No. EMI, Proc. Paper 4678,

February, 1966, pp. 143-156.

8. Shannon, S.L., Yamane, G., and Dietrich, R . J. , " Dy na mic

Tnaxial Tests on Sands," Proc. of the First Pan American

Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,

Mexico City, Vol. 1, 1959, pp. 473-489.

9. Stevens, H . B . , "S ug ges ted Method of Test for Some

Viscoelastic Properties of Materials, Especially Frozen

and Nonfrozen Soils, Under Vibratory Loads," ASTM Special

Technical Publication, STP 479, 1970, pp. 530-546.

\

A-! 3

APPENDIX B

Draft Report

of the

Initial ASTM Resonant Column Round Robin Testing Program

D P AFT Resonant Column Round Robin Program January 79

RESULTS 01 RESONANT COLUMN ROUND ROBIN TESTING PROGRAM

Dr. Vincent P. Drnevich, P.E.

Department of Civil Engir. eering

University of Kentucky

Lexington, Kentucky 40506

A) Purpose

1) Evaluate accuracy of the resonant column method;

2) Evaluate the draft standard on this nethod (Ref. 1) ;

3) Provide results that other laboratories can use to

’’calibrate" their apparatus and data reduction techniques;

4) Determine what problems are likely to occur with the •

method;

5) Check out the results from different apparatus having

different boundary conditions and specimen sizes.

B) Scope

1) Perform two tests on Monterey #0 sand, placed by the dry

tap method* at a relative density of 60% (dry mass density

of 1 580 Kg/cu. m) ;

2) In both tests, confining stresses were staged according to

the following sequence: 50 kPa, 100 kPa, 150 kPa, 300 kPa,

150 kPa, 100 kPa, and 50 kPa (7.25 psi, 14.5 psi, 29.0

psi, 43.5 psi, 29.0 psi, 14.5 psi, and 7.25 psi) ;

3) In test 1, testing was performed over a range of strain

*See Appendix 1. for details of this method.

6 -/

Dr n e v ich
DRAFT Resonant Column Round Robin Program January 79

amplitudes from low to high for all stages;

4) In test 2, testing at the first 3 stages was carried out

only at low strains (less than 0.001 percent). At the

highest pressure (300 kPa) and at all subsequent stages

(150 kPa, 100 kPa, and 50 kPa) , testing was done at

strains from low to high as in test 1.

5) Taree government, tour university, and four consultants

laboratories were invited to participate. One university

and one consultant did not respond. Further, one

university only completed one of the two tests. Their data

was not used in the analyses. One government laboratory

performed the tests cn two different apparatus, having

different specimen sizes and boundary conditions. Results

of both their tests were used. Another laboratory

performed tests using both longitudinal and torsional

vibration, sequentially on the same specimens at each

stage. Although the test specifications were written to

allow for longitudinal excitation, this was the only

laboratory to provide results for that excitation mode. No

analysis was made of the lonyitudinal excitation data.

6) The types of apparatus, the boundary conditions, and the

specimen sizes are given in Table 1. The apparatus used

represent all those in common use. If data from these

apparatus and specimen sizes are comparable, then it can

be said that the results are device and specimen size

independent.

8-2

Dr u e v ich
DRAFT Resonant Column Pound Robin Program January 79

C) Result of Test Program

1) Specimen Densities: The densities reported by eacn of the

laboratories for each of the specimens is given in Table

2. The mean density was 1585 Kg/cubic m (98.9 pcf) with

the standard deviation of 12 Kg/cubic m (0.7 pcf). This

density corresponds to a void ratio of 0.678 and a relative density of approximately 60%.

2) Initial Tangent Shear Modulus vs. Mean Erfective Ccn fining

Stress: The results of the ascending pressure stages of

test 2 were used for this because only vibrations at low

strains were applied to the specimen. The results are

shown in Fig. 1. along with the least squares best fit and

the upper and lower standard errors of estimate. A 0.93

coefficient of correlation shows that the data fit quite

well. As a reference, the Hardin Equation (Ref. 2) is also

plotted cn this graph. It can be concluded that with the

exception of a few outlying points, that initial tangent

modulus can be measured with good accuracy and that the

Hardin Equation accurately describes the initial tangent

modulus cf Monterey sand.

If the data from test 1 were used, the scatter would

have been significantly worse due to the different amounts

of prestraining applied by each laboratory. Prestraining

at high amplitude at a given confining stress affects the

low amplitude (initial tangent) modulus at other
DRAFT

3)

Fesonartt Column Hound Robin Program January 79

subsequent confining stresses. The maynitude of the

effects is dependent on the level and the number of cycles

of high amplitude shear strain. From the results of this

program, it appears that prestrain effects are not

significant if shear strain amplitudes are kept less thaa

0.01 percent.

Shear Modulus vs. Shear Strain Amplitude: These results

are best rep re seated by test 1 with tne confining stress

of 50 kFa (7.25 psi) and by test 2 with the confining

stress of 300 kPa (43.5 Psi) because the specimens had not

undergone any high amplitude prestraining before these

stages. The results are given in Figs. 2 and 3. The

scales in both figures are tne same but there is a suppressed zero on the ordinate in Fig. 3. The agreement

among the laboratories appears to be quite good for the

most part. The least squares best fit lines and the upper

and lower standard errors of estimate are shown on both

figures. The least squares best fit lines for both,

confining stresses are plotted in Fig. 4 where they are

compared with curves that are predicted by use of design

equations of Hardin and Drnevich (Hef. 3) . Here again it

can be said that these design equations can accurately

represent Monterey sand.

If the modulus values tor both curves are normalized by

dividing them by the initial tangent modulus, the two

curves given in Fig. 5 result. These curves show that

Dr n e v icn

B-Ll
DRAFT Resonant Column Round Robin Program January 79

modulus reduction with shear strain amplitude is a function of confining stress. T;.c erfects of confining

stress can be removed by use of tne concept of reference

strain (Ref. 3) which normalizes the abscissa values.

When normalized modulus is plotted versus normal izea shear

strain, a single curve results as shown in Fig. 6.

4) Damping Ratio vs. Confining Pressure: Damping ratio

versus confining pressure results are snovn in Fig. 7. In

this figure, only the results from test 1 with confining

stress at 50 kPa (7.25 psi) and from test 2 with confining

stress at 300 kPa (43.5 psi) are plotted. Actually, the

data points in this figure are not the actual ones

reported but ones calculated from least squares best fit

lines to the damping versus strain amplitude data. This

was necessary because accurate measurement of camping when

the magnitude of damping ratio is less than one percent is

extremely difficult. About the only conclusions that can

be drawn from these results is that the damping of

Monterey sand at shear strain levels of 0.001 percent is

below 1 percent and that damping ratio tends to decrease

as confining stress increases.

5) Damping Ratio vs. Shear Strain Amplitude: These results

are given in Figs. 3 and 9. Again the data are for test 1

at bO kPa (1.2b psi) and test 2 at 300 kPa (43.5 psi) . The

least squares best fit lines and the standard error of

Dr nevich
DRAFT Resonant Column Round Fobin Program

estimate lines are also given. Data scatter

values are greater than in modulus values.

D) Discussion of Results

1) The methcd of specimen construction for density control

appears to be quite good.

2) For non-prestrained specimens, shear modulus at low strain

amplitude (shear strain - 0.001 percent) can be measured

accurately and may be described by use of the Hardin

eg ua t ion .

3) Good correlations among laboratories exist for snear

modulus versus shear strain amplitude for non-prestrained

specimens. This behavior may also be described by the

design equations of Hardin and Drnevich.

4) It is very difficult to obtain accurate damping ratio

measurements when damping is below one percent. Several

possible reasons for this may include: improper apparatus

damping determina ticn in calibration (or disregarding

apparatus damping altogether), effects of membranes, and

wind and eddy current damping in the torque producing

components of the apparatus.

5) It is the opinion of the author that much of the data

January 79

in damping

6-6

Drnev ich
DRAFT Resonant Column Round Robin Projram January 79

scatter in all of the results presented herein could have

been reduceu if all of the laboratories had followed the

calibration and data reduction according to the proposed

standard (Ref. 1). Although each laboratory was explicitly

asxed to do this, a review or the data indicates that

several of the laboratories ignored this request and

simply ran the tests and reduced the data using old

calibrations ana data reduction techniques.

E) Conclusions

1) The round robin testing was a most worthwhile activity

demonstrating that the resonant column test provides

accurate quantitative measurement of shear modulus and

shear damping.

2) The test results appear independent of apparatus type and

specimen size.

3) The results compare very well with currently availanle

design equations and curves.

8-7

Drne v ich
DRAFT Resonant Column Round Robin Program January 79

REFERENCES

1. Drnevich , V.F., Hardin, B.O., aud Shippy, D . J . , " M od ul us and

Damping in Soils by tuc Reson a n t -Col urn r. Method," ASTM Special

Technical Publication STP 654, ASTH, 197b, pp. 91-125.

2. Hardin, B.O., and Richart, F.E., Jr., "Elastic Wave Velocities

in Granular Soils," J. of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations

Div. , ASCE, Vol. 39, No. SM 1, February 1963, pp. 33-65.

3. Hardin, B.O. and Drnevich, V. P. , "Shear Modulus and Damping in

Soils Design Equations and Curves," J. of the Soil Mechanics

and Foundations Div. , ASCE, Vol. 93, No. SM 7, July, 1 972 , pp.

667-692.

3- 8

Drnevich
DRAFT Resonant Column Round Robin Program January 79

A ppend ix I

.

The details for specimen preparation are as follows:

1) Attach a membrane to a bottom platen and place a mold about

t he membran e

2) Use a vacuum to pull the membrane to the mold.

3) Place into the mold a special cylindrical tube slightly

smaller in diameter than the membrane lined mold with a #10

sieve attached to the lower end.

4) Fill the cylinder with the amount of sand required for the

completed specimen.

5) The cylinder is slowly raised and the oold is gently tapped as

the sand flows out.

6) The top surface of the sand is leveled off and the top platen

is attached.

7) The membrane is pulled up over the top platen, 0-rings are

used to complete the seal and specimen measurements are made.

3-1

Drnevich
/

. /

/ /

TABLE

Information on Apparatus, Boundary Conditions and Specimens

A ppara t us

Hardin

Drnevich

Shannon & Wilson 1

Stok oe

Soil Dyn. Instr. 1

Mo. Used

in Program

3o uncia c y

Condition

Fixed BaseSpring Top

Fixed BaseFree Top

Spring BaseFree Top

Fixed BaseFree Top

Spring BaseFree Top

Specimen Sizes

( Dia . x Ler; gt h in am)

36x75, 60x150

70x 1 40

50x100

7 Ox 1 40

70x150

36x75

1 50x300

B-10
Table

Specimen Sizes and Don si ties

Laboratory Nominal Specimen Density for Density for

Code Size (Pia.xLgth.) Test Mo. . 1 Tost No. 2

(mm) ( Kg/cu . m) ( :< j /c u . m

)

1 30. xl no. 1 590 . 8 1624.6

70. x 1 50. 1 579 . 6 1579.6

3 60. zl 50. 15 87 . 8 1585 .

2

4 70. xl 40. 1501.5 1580.

6

5 70. xl 40. 1567.

2

15 82 . 2

6 40. x 75. 1 583 . 6 1595.3

7 60. xl 50. 1580.4 1588.0

3 36. x 75. 1 566.

4

1503.4

9 150. x 3 00

.

1573.3 1574.0

Mean Valu es for Each Test 1 581 . 7

• 1593. 1 . Standard Deviation for Each Test 7. 1 14.9 ' Mean Value for Program 1 504 .

9

Standard Deviation for Program 11.8

&-/i
/

o

o

CScLiAI) sn|npoiAI uinuiixn^

3-12

Confining

Stress.

(kPa)
I

6-i 3
/

/

B-i^
£

rtbno

Li ccH

co<C

Li CM

-t-j C— — a

ti

—

in

o> CQ

in0) Li

053

cr co

-4-> Wo5 0) wJ

‘L_oco

in • —4

L,o3 CL£oU

-Cu>

QJC

L. Qic

TJL

05 SC oocoooooo

(BdlAl) sninpoiAi JBsqs

Shear

Strain

(%)
Normalized

Shear

Modulus

/vs.

Shear

Strain

8-' 6

Shear

Strain

(%'
Normalized

Shear

Modulus

.vs.

Normalized

Shear

Strain

Least

Squares

Data

Fit,

ASTM

Test

program

Confining

Stress =

50

kPa

and

300kPa oooo• o iII II »

’\ t 6-/7

Shear

Strain/

Reference

Strain
-

Fig.B7_

.Damping

Ratio

{%)

/

\

Confining Stress (kPa)

Damping Ratio at Shear Strain of 0. 001% vs. Confining Stress

Data Derived from Le"ast Squares Fit Applied Independently

to Each Laboratory^
r

\

8-'?
3-20

'\

#

Shear

Strain

(%>
APPENDIX C

Tabulated Dest Data

from the

NBS Resonant Column Pilot Test Program

Sample

M-lOl

M-103

Table C.l: G and Damping Measurements in

max ^ 5

Resonant Column Testing

No. Symbol Type

hollow

cylindrical

O hollow

cylindrical

Confining

Stress/ c~3

' Shear

Strain

G

max

Damping

Ratio, D

kPa T, % MPa %

U.4 1.20-3 L9.6 1.062

24.3 1.05-3 40.0 0.69.5

43.7 8.25-4 53.8 0.561

72.6 7.28-4 69 .

6

0.491

101.1 7.78-4 80.6 0.397

154.7 6.07-4 96.0 0.427

199.3 9.90-4 108.8 0.347

150.2 6.30-4 97.2 0.409

100.9 7.70-4 79.4 0.405

49.9 7.90-4 55.6 0.665

26.4 1.11-3 40.0 0.561

12.3 1.01-3 26.2 0.936

101.2 9.10-4 80.5 0.339

16.0 9.60-4 37.2 0.701

25.0 8.80-4 42.8 0.665

15.0 1.00-3 35.7 0.688

25.0 8.60-4 44.4 0.545

16.0 9.60-4 36 5 0.714

25.0 8.70-4 44.4 0.536

75.0 6.30-4 72.1 0.552

101.0 6.1C-4 82.0 0.497

149.0 4.90-4 96.3 0.523

200.0 4.60-4 106.4 0.509

157.0 5.50-4 98.8 0.473

99.0 6.80-4 82.0 0.446

24.0 1.04-3 42.0 0.568

15.0 1.02-3 33.5 0.726

LOO . 0 6.30-4 82.0 0.485

C-l
Table C.l: G and Damping Measurements in max r & Resonant Column Testing (cont'd)

Sample No. Symbol

M-107

Specimen

Type

solid

M-109 hollow

M-117 solid

Confining

Stress n

-

f U3

Shear

Strain

G

max

Damping

Ratio, D

kPa % MPa %

ll.l 1 . 03-3 31.2 0.622

10.0 l . 11-3 29.3 0.612

26.0 1 . 01-3 48.0 0.408

51.0 8 . 76-4 66 .

0.345

75.0 7 . 97-4 80.5 0.311

74.0 7 . 97-4 80.5 0.311

100 .0 5 . 11-4 91.5 0.426

149.0 5 . 20-4 110.5 0.348

200.0 6 . 22-4 126.7 0.253

300.0 6 . 02-4 148.5 0.186

10.4 1 . 30-3 29.1 0.714

10.1 . 25-3 29.8 0.665

30.0 9 . 67-4 50.3 0.424

62.0 9 . 46-4 70.7 0.309

92.0 1 . 05-3 83.9 0.281

125.0 8 . 23-4 95.8 0.262

162.0 9 . 12-4 105.9 0.214

193.0 9 . 00-4 115.1 0.239

251.0 9 . 59-4 129.0 0.167

300.0 2 . 20-4 139.2 0.400

10.

6 . 84-4 28.4 0.512

43.0 5 . 89-4 57.9 0.292

87.0 4 . 23-4 81.9 0.287

131.0 2 . 84-4 97.9 0.358

180.0 3 . 51-4 113.

0.249

233.0 3 . 92-4 128.5 0.263

300.0 3 . 53-4 144.3 0.195

T

C -2
Table C.2: Shear Modulus, G, and Damping, D^, Measurements

at Confining Stress, = 50 kPa

Sample No.

M-104

M-106

M-107

Symbol

A

Specimen

Type

Shear

Strain

Shear

Modulus , G

Da mping

Ratio, D,

X % MPa %

hollow 9.77-4 64.3 0.393

cylindrical 1.45-3 63 .

3

0.439

2.51-3 62.4 0.657

4.08-3 60.4 0.884

6.30-3 57.5 1.283

1.02-2 53.7 2.060

1.60-2 50.1 2.802

2.61-2 45.0 4..3 99

3.85-2 40.9 5.389

solid 8.46-4 64 .

6

0.304

1.41-3 63.3 0.373

2.40-3 61.9 0.537

3.77-3 60 .

6

0.772

5 . 86-3 58.0 1.126

9.20-3 54.2 1.810

1.37-2 49.3 2.682

2.13-2 44.7 4.024

3.20-2 39.2 5.591

solid 9.50-4 62.0 0.339

1.53-3 60 .

6

0.395

2.60-3 59.3 0.561

3.94-3 58.0 0.756

6.06-3 56.7 1.044

1.03-2 54.2 1.549

1.63-2 50.5 2.373

2.26-2 45.8 3.503

3.35-2 40.3 5.168

C-3
Table C.2

Sample No.

M-113

M-114

: Shear Modulus, G, and Damping, D^,, Measurements

at Confining Stress, cr^ = 50 kPa (cont'd)

Symbol

©

Specimen

Type

Shear

Strain

Shear

Modulus , G

Damping

Ratio, D

% % MPa %

hollow 5.25-4 60.9 0.386

cylindrical 9.06-4 60.9 0.446

1.46-3 60.0 0.514

2.37-3 59.0 0.704

3.87-3 57.1 0.984

6.07-3 54.3 1.405

9.79-3 50.7 2.142

1.70-2 45.5 3.163

2.53-2 42.2 4.370

3.68-2 39.0 5.935

solid 6.31-4 63.4 0.250

1.15-3 63.4 0.320

1.72-3 62.1 0.405

2.63-3 60.8 0.562

4.15-3 59.4 0.728

6.68-3 55.6 1.102

1.05-2 5L.9 2.003

1.55-2 47.1 2.979

2.18-2 42.6 4.220

3.35-2 37.2 5.525
Table

Sample

M-109

M-110

;. 3 : Shear Modulus, G, and Damping, D^, Measurements

at Confining Stress, <7 = 300 kPa

Symbol

<

Specimen Shear Shear Damping

Type Strain Modulus , G Ratio,

'

~i, % MPa %

hollow 2.22-4 139.2 0.400

cylindrical 4.08-4 139.2 0.364

9.12-4 139.2 0.390

1.66-3 137.7 0.416

3.17-3 136.2 0.526

5.43-3 133.3 0.667

9.32-4 130.4 0.945

1.45-2 127.6 1.272

2.18-2 120.6 1.762

3.17-2 115.1 2.248

4.22-2 109.8 2 . 40.6

hollow 1.93-4 149.5 0.426

cylindrical 3.02-4 149.5 0.454

7.37-4 147.9 Q. 451

1.38-3 146.4 0.467

2.73-3 144.9 0.549

4.74-3 143.4 0.652

8.53-3 139.0 0.879

1.48-2 134.6 1.272

2 . 10-2 l 28.9 1.632

2.87-2 124.7 2.130

3.73-2 120.5 2.287

T

C-5
Table C

Sample

M—111

M-117

.3: Shear Modulus, G, and Damping, D^, Measurements

at Confining Stress , = 300 kPa (cont'd)

Specimen Shear Shear Damping

Symbol Type Strain Modulus, G Ratio, D^

-y, % MPa %

0 hollow 1.88-4 144.7 0.457

cylindrical 3.70-4 143.2 0.389

7.48-4 141.7 0.467

1.43-3 141.7 0.488

2.66-3 140.2 0.565

4.81-3 137.3 0.676

8.39-3 134.4 0.891

1.41-2 l 28.6 1.224

2.22-2 123.0 1.764

3.06-2 114.8 2.124

4.11-2 109.5 2.205

• solid 3.53-4 144 .

0.195

6.59-4 144 .0.209

1.19-3 142.2 0.235

2.02-3 140.2 0.293

3.46-3 138.2 0.388

5.72-3 136.2 0.527

9.28-3 132.3 0.756

1.43-2 126.5 1.183

2.11-2 120.9 1.683

2.86-2 115.4 2.039

3.73-2 106.5 2.239

C-6
Table C.3: Shear Modulus , G , and Damping , , Measurements

at Confining Stress,

^ =: 300 kPa (cont'd)

Specimen

Sample Symbol Type

Shear

Strain

Shear

Modulus , Damping

G Ratio, D^

, % MPa %

M-U8 <4 solid 2.71-4 151.1 0.239

4.65-4 151.1 0.232

8.20-4 149.0 0.240

1.20-3 149.0 0.255

1.74-3 147.0 0.293

2.87-3 144.9 0.377

4.93-3 142.9 0.510

8.69-3 136.9 0.765

1.23-2 133.0 1.017

1.75-2 129.1 1.384

2.67-2 121.6 2.021

3.26-2 116.1 2.301

C-7

NBS-114A (rev. 2 -ec) U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR 2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

REPORT NO.

SHEET (See instructions) NBSIR 82-2568 December 1982

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Contribution to the ASTM Resonant Column Round Robin Testing Program

5. AUTHOR(S)

Riley M. Chung and Felix Y. Yokel

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions) 7. Contract/Grant No. national bureau of standards

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 8. Type of Report & Period Covered

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

I 9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State, ZIP)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

| | Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most si gnificant information. If document includes a si gnificant

bi bliography or literature survey, mention it here)

Results from National Bureau of Standards (NBS) resonant column tests to determine shear moduli and damping ratios for Monterey No. 0 sand are presented to supplement the ASTM resonant column round robin program.

In addition to testing solid specimen as specified for the initial ASTM

round robin program, hollow cylindrical specimens were tested to provide

an independent check on the validity of the results.

The NBS test data on shear moduli are consistently lower than the average

values obtained from the initial round robin program, but they are within

the range of the initial round robin test data. It is believed that, at least

in part, the difference between the NBS and the round robin data was caused

by the fact the NBS specimens had a lower average relative density which was

also closer to 60 percent relative density specified for the round robin tests.

Damping ratios obtained by NBS fit rather closely the curve obtained from the

initial round robin program.

No significant difference was found between the maximum shear moduli and

damping ratios obtained from the testing of solid specimens and hollow cylindrical

12. KEY WORDS f§lx

=

to

1

' twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons)

Damping; resonant column; round robin tests; shear modulus; soil dynamics;

test methods; torsional vibrations

13. AVAILABILITY 14. NO. OF

|_2$l Unlimited

PRINTED PAGES

| | For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

| | Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

64

15. Price

|_XJ Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161 $9.00

USCOMM-OC 6043-P80


to